Ethics of scientific publications is a system of professional behavior norms in the relationship between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creation, distribution and use of scientific publications. The policy of the Journal "Practical Marketing" in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of The Committee on Publication Ethics (


1 Responsibilities of Authors


1.1 The author submitting a manuscript to the Journal "Practical Marketing" confirms that it is original, i.e. it has not been previously published in other journals in the same or similar form and is not under consideration by another journal. The author notifies the Editorial Board if the article is based on previously published materials such as a report, preprint, working material.


1.2 The list of authors includes only those who have made a significant contribution to the research and all co-authors consent to the submission of their manuscript to the Journal. The author, who is acting as the contact with the Editorial Board, does not take individual decisions and notifies all co-authors of possible corrections in the article.


1.3 Authors must present their research results honestly, without fabrication, falsification or unfair manipulation of data.


1.4 The authors guarantee no plagiarism in any form; the authors provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations if other authors’ papers or statements are used.


1.5 Authors should avoid self-plagiarism and correctly cite their previous publications. Presenting the same data in several publications, verbatim copying and rephrasing the author’s own papers is inadmissible.



1.6 Authors have an obligation to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as ones having the impact on the results or conclusions presented in the paper.


1.7 In case of significant errors or inaccuracies in their already published paper, the author must timely notify the editorial board and make a joint decision on the possible form of their correction.


2 Responsibilities of Reviewers


2.1 Reviewing helps the Editor-in-Chief to make a reasoned decision on the publication of the article and through appropriate interaction with the authors can help the author to improve the paper quality.


2.2 Any reviewer who realizes their lack of qualifications to review a manuscript or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should timely notify the editor and request to be excluded from the review process of the manuscript in question.


2.3 Any manuscript received for peer review should be treated as a confidential document. This manuscript should not be discussed with anyone not authorized by the editor.


2.4 The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinion clearly and reasonably.


2.5 Reviewers should pay attention to significant gaps in the lists of references on the subject. On the other hand, any statement published earlier should have an appropriate bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities or overlaps found between the manuscript under review and any other published paper within the reviewer's area of scientific expertise.


2.6 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review cannot be used by the reviewer in their own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.


2.7 Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors or other organizations related to the submitted paper.


3 Responsibilities of the Editor


3.1 The Editor-in-Chief is autonomously and independently responsible for the deciding on the publication, relying on cooperation with the Editorial Board of the Journal. Decisions on publication should always be based on the scientific content of the paper in question, its scientific relevance and credibility. The Editor makes fair and objective decisions regardless of commercial considerations and ensures a fair and efficient reviewing process.


3.2 The Editor shall evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.


3.3 The editor guarantees the confidentiality of reviewing process and does not work with manuscripts for which he/she has a conflict of interest.


3.4 The Editor solves any conflict situations arising in the process and uses all available means to resolve them.


3.5 An editor who receives convincing evidence that a published article has a serious breach of ethical standards, erroneous statements or conclusions should report this to the publisher for the purpose of prompt notification of changes, retraction of the publication, expression of concern and other actions appropriate to the situation.


4 Responsibilities of the Publisher


4.1 The publisher should follow policies and procedures that promote the ethical responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be assured that its overall revenue-generating attitude has not influenced the editors’ decisions.


4.2 The publisher should support the Journal editors in dealing with ethical claims about published material and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers if this facilitates the fulfillment of the editors' duties.


4.3 The publisher should promote proper research practices and implement best practices to improve ethical guidelines, article retraction procedures, and error correction.


  1. Revocation (Retraction) of articles


When considering situations related to the retraction of articles, the editorial board and the publisher of the Journal "Practical Marketing" are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and the ANRI Ethics Council.

The grounds for retracting an article:

- revealing major errors or data falsification in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value

- duplication of the publication in several editions

- revealing incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication

An article can be retracted based on an official appeal from the authors, who have motivated the reason for their decision, as well as on the initiative of the editorial board of the Journal or publisher on the basis of their own expertise. In the latter case, the authors are sent an official letter with information about the reasons for retracting the article.

After retracting, the article remains on the Journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier, but is marked as retracted. The same marking is made in the table of contents of the issue. The PDF version of the article is replaced by an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been retracted.

  The Editorial Board publishes a statement about the article revocation with the reasons and date of retraction on the official website of the Journal and in the next printed issue.

Information about the article retraction and its PDF-version with appropriate marking are sent to the Scientific Electronic Library ( and other bibliographic databases, in which the Journal is included. The information is also sent to the ANRI Ethics Council of Scientific Publications for inclusion in the Unified Database of Retracted Articles.