GENERAL INFORMATION

The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management relies on an open and transparent review process. Submitted manuscripts are posted on the journal's website and are publicly available. In addition to solicited reviews selected by members of the editorial board, public reviews and comments are welcome by any researcher and can be uploaded using the journal website. All reviews and responses from the authors are posted on the journal homepage. All involved reviewers and editors will be acknowledged in the final printed version. While we strongly encourage reviewers to participate in the open and transparent review process it is still possible to submit anonymous reviews.

The standard workflow of the review process is as follows.

1. Authors submit their article using the journal website. Submissions are screened to filter out articles which clearly fail to match the quality standards of the journal - these are rejected outright.
2. The article is made available on the journal website. The submission is announced on the journal blog. An editorial board member (EBM) is assigned to the article.
3. The EBM solicits three reviews, usually to be completed within 6 weeks. The EBM also openly invites other researchers in the area to write public reviews for the manuscript.
4. The reviews of the solicited reviewers are posted on the journal website – usually together with their names and affiliations (the EBM may elect to arrange a brief discussion among the solicited reviewers, in particular if opinions differ drastically). Reviewers may choose to remain anonymous. Any other researcher can choose to become a reviewer for the article by posting a non-anonymous review on the journal homepage. These reviews will be made available as soon as the solicited reviews are online.
5. The EBM, together with the journal editors, decide on acceptance or rejection of the article.
6. If the article gets accepted, all reviewers and editors which were substantially involved are named in the final version.
7. The authors are strongly encouraged to upload the final drafts of accepted versions on their local websites. The official SWJ layout version will be made available through IOS Press.

Authors of rejected manuscripts may request, after a minimum of 4 weeks following the notification, that their articles and reviews are removed from the public journal website and made available only to members of the Editorial Board. The journal editors reserve the right to remove reviews which do not follow established good scholarly practice.

The results of research should be recorded and maintained in a form that allows analysis and review. Research data should be immediately available to scientific collaborators. Following publication, the data should be retained for a reasonable period in order to be available promptly and completely to responsible scientists. Exceptions may be appropriate in certain circumstances in order to preserve privacy, to assure patent protection, or for similar reasons.

Fabrication of data or selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious departure from the expected norms of information conduct, as is the theft of data or research results from others.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors. The sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Plagiarism constitutes unethical behavior and is never acceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others used in a research project must always be given. Further, it is the obligation of each author to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works.

Peer review provides advice concerning research proposals, the publication of research results and career advancement of colleagues. It is an essential component of the scientific process.

Peer review can serve its intended function only if the members of the scientific community are prepared to provide thorough, fair and objective evaluations based on requisite expertise. Although peer review can be difficult and time-consuming, they have an obligation to participate in the process.

Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for competitive gain.

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.

There are many professional activities that have the potential for a conflict of interest. Any professional relationship or action that may result in a conflict of interest must be fully disclosed. When objectivity and effectiveness cannot be maintained, the activity should be avoided or discontinued.

It should be recognized that honest error is an integral part of the scientific enterprise. It is not unethical to be wrong, provided that errors are promptly acknowledged and corrected when they are detected.