Focus and Scope
Focus and scope
The main idea of our journal is to create a platform for a broad discussion on various problems of contemporary economics and management which concern both scholars and business practitioners. Our mission is to be a reliable, professional and widely respected promoter of the achievements in this topic.
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia publishes peer-reviewed case studies, reviews, conceptual contributions and empirical research of the highest quality. Topics will be drawn from, but are not limited to, the following areas:
- organisational theory, development and restructuring of organisations
- strategic management
- quality management
- organisational behaviour and culture
- Human Resources Management
- management systems and business models
- Value Based Management
- planning, development and management of computer systems, and application of information technology
- finance and world economy
- psychology and ethics in business
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
Peer Review Process
Reviewing scientific papers published in "Forum Scientiae Oeconomia" is based on recommendations resulting from the publication of the Ministry of Science and High Education: Best Practices in the procedures of reviewing in science, Warsaw 2011.
1. All papers submitted for publication in "Forum Scientiae Oeconomia" are to be evaluated in the review process.
2. The review of scientific papers is undertaken by competent people in a particular field or discipline (including foreign reviewers) who do not have business or close personal relationships nor any conflict of interest with the authors.
3. All reviews are confidential and anonymous in accordance with the standards of double-blind review.
4. Review should be prepared according to the Template (download Review Template).
5. Approval for publication depends on the positive recommendations of reviewers.
6. Sending scientific research for publication in "Forum Scientiae Oeconomia" by the author in print or/and electronic form is equivalent to an expression of agreement with the process of review.
7. If the reviewers suggest any amendments, the author should consider them.
8. The list of reviewers will be published on the journal web page at the end of the year.
9. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work before it is published.
10. The review process consists of the following steps:
a. formal assessment carried out by the editor or the secretary of the Editorial Team. If the text does not meet the basic requirements of linguistic correctness and was not drafted in accordance with the editorial requirements - the author is informed.
b. the preliminary assessment is undertaken by the editors and special editors of the volume. They suggest the subsequent course of proceedings: either the return of the paper to be completed or referral to an external scientific review. They also suggest names of reviewers.
c. Scientific reviews of the two independent reviewers. The author will be informed of the outcome with a clear conclusion as to whether the article was accepted or rejected. The reviewer may also report comments or suggestions or amendments which the author is obliged to make.
WSB Univeristy - policy for good scientific practice
Ghostwriting, guest authorship and plagiarism
In order to guarantee the scientific quality of the journal, Forum Scientiae Oeconomia has developed procedures with the aim of dealing with problems related to ghostwriting, guest authorship, and plagiarism. We consider scientific malpractice a significant breach of scientific ethics, as it may not only concern a breach of intellectual property rights and a sign of bad science, but also reduce trust in science, which can have serious negative consequences not only for trust in the scientific community, but also for socio-economic development.
Ghostwriting - the contribution of co-author(s) to the article is not mentioned.
Guest authorship (honorary authorship) - a person is identified as a co-author while not having contributed to the article.
The authors should mention the contribution of others to the development of ideas. This also concerns informal conversations, where someone else comes up with an original idea. This person should obtain credit for this from the author(s).
Plagiarism – this phenomenon is interpreted as a case when resources are not given and/or when the thoughts of other authors are not properly paraphrased. The authors should make clear when thoughts are their own, but also give credit to the authors whose work created the basis for developing their thoughts.
The resources should be given in such a way, that the reader can easily find the original source, while being able to verify data (when used).
Autoplagiarism – this phenomenon is interpreted as a case when the article contains more than 10% of text already published by the same author somewhere else. When using and paraphrasing one’s own work, the resource also should be identified. In special cases, the publication of a translation of an article or a reprint of an article is permitted, under the condition that the original source is clearly mentioned in the first footnote. This is allowed when FSO considers it worthwhile to make the article available to the wider public.
Improper or unsound scientific practice, based on decisions of reviewers, the editor or the editorial board, may lead to the following consequences:
- Exclusion from publication of the article in question in FSO.
- Depending on the seriousness of the improper practice, the author may be excluded from future publication in FSO, while the employer of the author and other institutions and journals will be informed.
In cases in which an article has more than one author, all authors are held responsible. The reason is that the FSO assumes that co-authorship is based on strong cooperation between the authors, as well as peer review of co-authors regarding the individual contributions.