SEISENSE publishes articles on rolling baes. It means articles are published as soon as they are peer-reviewed, accepted, copyedited, and proofread.
Open Access Policy
This is an open-access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Article Processing Charges
At SEISENSE we guarantee that no university library or individual reader will ever have to buy a subscription or pay any pay-per-view fees to access articles in the electronic version of the journal. We do not want fees to prevent the publication of worthy work. So, there is no submission or publication fee for the journal.
SEISENSE is a complete academic publishing portal, run by active researchers, that enables the publication of a journal. The service is organized around two key principles: openness and quality. Open Access is free for readers and authors, decoupling the scientific and financial issues. The SBR works as a non-profit foundation, with an editorial board, and reviewers – all working on a volunteer basis. To offset the financial cost, SBR works with supporting partners, funding national/international bodies, foundations, and benefactors. We are thankful to PKP – for providing Open Journal System platform and sponsoring the SBR for Crossref DOI.
The SBR allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre-and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. All authors hold full copyright and self-archiving rights. Authors are allowed to archive their articles in open access repositories as “post-prints”. In order to digitally preserve all published scholarly content, the SEISENSE Business Review commits to submit the metadata of all its journals to PKP Preservation Network (PN). This is to make sure that the published scholarly content by SEISENSE Publishing remains available to the community despite any accidental loss of data in its personal archival records. SEISENSE Publishing has further made sure that the metadata of its open-access journal is compliant with well-known repository services and their digital crawlers may regularly collect it for record and preservation.
Peer Review Process
SBR uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting to the journal:
- Submit the Title Page containing the author's details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files.
- After a paper is submitted to the SBR, a journal editor screens the manuscript and generates a plagiarism report using Turnitin. If the manuscript falls in the journal scope and plagiarism is below 10% the handling editor sends invitations to at least two individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. If a paper does not pass through the stage, the handling editor rejects the paper on a desk.
- Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
- Finally, SBR editors or the editorial board consider the peer reviewers’ reports and make the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.
SEISENSE is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and provides an ethical publishing framework in accordance with COPE’s codes of conduct for editors and publishers. If a case of suspected research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, we will follow the guidance and workflows recommended by COPE. In the first instance, this will usually involve contacting the person/persons about whom the allegations have been raised to request an explanation. We may also need to contact the involved party's research institution, an ethics committee, or other third parties. Research misconduct includes data fabrication or falsification, or cases where research involving animals or humans has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Publication misconduct includes duplicate publication of articles or clear plagiarism. Honest errors or differences of opinion are not considered ‘misconduct’. If you suspect potential misconduct in an article published on SEISENSE, please contact the SEISENES editorial office (email@example.com) - a member of the editorial team will contact you within 10 working days to confirm the details that you have provided and ask any additional questions needed for us to investigate. Please be aware that it may not be possible to keep you updated throughout the process, however, we will endeavor to let you know the outcome where appropriate. Editorship — The SBR strongly supports the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Authorship — All those who have made a significant contribution should be given chance to be cited as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the work should be acknowledged. Articles should include a full list of the current institutional affiliations of all authors, both academic and corporate. Plagiarism — The section editor of the assigned article will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in the journal. All submissions we receive are checked by using plagiarism detection online available tools such as Turnitin. Corrections and retractions All authors have an obligation to inform and corporate with journal editors to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works.
Articles may be retracted for several reasons, including:
- honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to the mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that is found subsequently to be faulty)
- research misconduct (data fabrication)
- duplicate or overlapping publication
- fraudulent use of data
- clear plagiarism
- unethical research
For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the Retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article (which usually remains on the site) and the article will be clearly marked as retracted (including the PDF). An article is usually only retracted at the authors’ request or by the publisher in response to an institutional investigation. It is important to note in the context of SEISENSE’s publication model, that ‐ as in traditional journals ‐ a retracted article is not ‘unpublished’ or ‘withdrawn’ in order for it to be published elsewhere. The reasons for retraction are usually so serious that the whole study, or large parts of it, are not appropriate for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere. The content of a retracted article would only be removed where legal limitations have been placed upon the publisher, copyright holder, or author(s), for example, if the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information for the article will be retained on the site along with information regarding the circumstances that led to the removal of the content. Under rare circumstances, for example, if false or inaccurate data have been published that, if acted upon, pose a serious health risk, the original incorrect version(s) may be removed and a corrected version published. The reason for this partial removal would be clearly stated in the latest version.
If there is a potential, not yet resolved, problem with an article, it may be appropriate to alert readers with an Editorial Note. Such an Editorial Note may be added, for example, if SEISENSE receives information that research or publication misconduct might have taken place, or that there is a serious dispute between authors or between the authors and third parties. The Editorial Note will usually be posted while further investigations take place and until a more permanent solution has been found (e.g. the publication of a revised ‘corrected’ version, or a Retraction).
Expression of Concern
In rare cases, SEISENSE may decide to publish an Expression of Concern, which is linked to the problematic article, if there are serious concerns about an article but no conclusive evidence can be obtained that would unequivocally justify a Retraction. This may include:
- if there is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct
- there is evidence that there are problems with the article, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
- an investigation into alleged misconduct has not been impartial or conclusive
Conflict of Interest
SEISENSE Business Review requires all authors and reviewers to declare any conflicts of interest that may be inherent in their submissions. Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, or editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected. Financial relationships with industry, for example, through employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered to be the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
Editors — May request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis."
Authors — When they submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.
Reviewers — External peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ conflicts of interest to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified. Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.
Copyright and Licensing
Authors retain the copyright of the article. Authors grant SEISENSE Business Review an irrevocable non-exclusive license to publish the article electronically and in print format and to identify itself as the original publisher. Authors can grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors and citation details are identified. The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following conditions:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licenser endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Permanency of Content
SEISENSE Business Review allows all versions (Submitted version, accepted version, published version (Version of Record) to be deposited in an institutional or another repository of the author’s choice without embargo. All articles published in SEISENSE receive a DOI and are permanently published.
In only special circumstances, Authors can revise, change and update their articles by publishing new versions, which are added to the article’s history; however, the individual versions, once published, cannot be altered or withdrawn and are permanently available on the SEISENSE website. SEISENSE participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. By applying the CrossMark policies, SEISENSE is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking on the CrossMark logo (at the top of each SEISENSE article) will give you the current status of an article and direct you to the latest published version.
In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, the following policies will be applied when published content needs to be corrected; these policies take into account current best practices in the scholarly publishing and library communities
Appeals and complaints
SEISENSE follows the COPE guidelines in relation to complaints and appeals. If you wish to make an appeal about an editorial decision or make a complaint you should contact the editorial office (firstname.lastname@example.org).