Guidelines

1. Authors' Guidelines
2. Authors’ Copyright Statement
3. Reviewers' Guidelines
4. Reviewers’ Conflict of Interest
5. Article Processing Charges
6. Publication Process & Steps

 

1. Authors' Guidelines

PREPARATION SECTION

Scope

Authors intending to submit a manuscript to the International Journal of Trends and Innovations in Business & Social Sciences (TIBSS) should check whether the manuscript is consistent with the journal’s editorial strategy and scope. Manuscripts submitted to TIBSS are welcome in all areas of empirical research, case studies, discussions, and critical reviews on a wide range of areas and themes that come under the ambit of business, entrepreneurship, innovation management and future industries as well as policymakers and government agencies.  The focus of the journal is on the research rigour, modelling, data-driven innovations, interpretation of results and how the results of the research may be translated into practice.

Language

Please write your manuscript in good English. Only British English usage is accepted.

Submission and Correspondence ID           

Manuscripts should be electronically submitted via Make a Submission. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revision, is sent by e-mail.

File Type

The manuscript should be submitted as a single Microsoft Word file including all contents. The author owns full rights of the text provided and the changes will not be made by the editors and publishers. In the case of the reprinting of previously published or copyright-protected material, the author is solely responsible for obtaining permission in this regard.

Article Length/Word limit

The length of an article, including the title, author information, abstract, text, tables, figures, notes, references, and appendices, should be approximately 4000-6000 words.

Submission Checklist

You can use this list to carry out a final check of your submission before you send it to the journal for review. Ensure that the following items are present:

One author has been designated as the corresponding author with contact details:

• E-mail address
• Full postal address

All necessary files listed below have been included:

Manuscript:

• Include keywords
• All figures (include relevant captions)
• All tables (including titles, description, footnotes)
• Ensure all figure and table citations in the text match the files provided
• Supplemental files (where applicable)

Please ensure the figures and tables included in the single file are placed either next to the relevant text in the article or on separate pages(s) at the end (not a mixture of both).

Further considerations

• The manuscript has been 'spell-checked' and 'grammar checked'
• All references mentioned in the Reference List are cited in the text, and vice versa
• Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Internet)
• A competing interests statement is provided, even if the authors have no competing interests to declare
• The full form of abbreviations for abstracting and abstracting purposes should be presented in the manuscript.
• Journal policies detailed in this guide have been reviewed
•  

Submission Declaration

It is TIBSS's editorial policy to welcome submissions for consideration which are original and not under consideration for any other publication at the same time. All authors should be aware of the importance of presenting content that is based on their own research and expressed in their own words. Plagiarism is considered to be bad practice and unethical. As per the part of Purdue Online Writing Lab, originality guidelines are designed to assist authors in understanding acceptable and unacceptable practice.

TIBSS follows allows similarity index less than 18% in overall manuscript. In addition, plagiarism from each source should be less than 3%. In case your paper is extracted from your own previously conducted research work, then also place the following statement in the author’s note:

“I hereby declare that the given paper is extracted from my MPhil/PhD thesis and/or is an extension of my previous research work.

FORMATTING SECTION

General guidelines for preparing the manuscript for submission are summarized in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.; APA, 2010; pp. 228–231). Authors may also find the following documents helpful for preparing manuscripts for submission in the TIBSS.

 APA Kit 

• Author Consent Form
• Contribution Form
• Manuscript Template
• Sample Cover Letter
• Authors ORCID iD Form
• Change of Authorship Form
• APA Formatting Booklet
• Manuscript Revision Form

Title Page

The first page of the manuscript should contain the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and a footnote giving the current affiliation of the author(s) and any acknowledgements or author’s note.

Abstract, Keywords and Classification Codes

All manuscripts must include an abstracts containing a maximum of 200 words typed on a separate page as well as an illustration (Graphical Abstract). After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases (APA). The abstract should explain the purpose of the research, the primary results, major conclusions and any policy prescriptions. It should not exaggerate or contain material, not in the main text. The abstract should be followed by JEL classification and keywords. Please provide up to 6 standard JEL/AMS codes. The available codes may be accessed at JEL (https://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php) or AMS (https://mathscinet.ams.org/msc/msc2010.html)

Introduction

A strong introduction engages the reader in the problem of interest and provides a context for the study at hand. In introducing the research concern, the author should provide a clear rationale for why the problem deserves new research, placing the study in the context of current knowledge and prior theoretical and empirical work on the topic. The summary of results should have been dealt with the abstract.

Literature Review

The author needs to extend the background to the article’s introduction and identify the most relevant previous literature on the topic for positioning the paper and demonstrate its significance. A separate section for setting out the theoretical or conceptual framework is recommended. In short, this section of the literature review should explain the motivation for the paper and the importance of this research relevant to the contributions.

Methodology/ Analysis

The author is required to provide the relevant and reliable supporting empirical or other material to the conclusion and that the methodology is appropriate and systematic.

Results & Discussion

Results should be clear and concise. The significance of the results of the research work, with no repeatedly mentioning of results in the text is often appropriate.

Tables, Figures, Formulas and Equations

Tables should be numbered and headed with appropriate concise titles. The tables are preferred to be presented after the main body of the text and not inserted in the manuscript. Tables for the main text and each of its appendices should be numbered serially and separately. The title of each table, as well as the captions of its columns and rows, should be clearly expressive of the contents. The source of the tables should be given in a footnote immediately below the line at the bottom of the table; but, unlike other footnotes, which must be numbered consecutively, it should not be numbered.

Mathematical formulae/ Equations: Please include mathematical equations and expressions as editable text and not as images. Write equations and formulas using the equation editor.

Chemical Structures: to draw chemical structures, please use ChemDraw program(s) such as ACD Labs, ChemDrawDirect, etc. 

Figure captions: Ensure that each illustration has a caption. A caption should comprise a brief title (not on the figure itself) and a description of the illustration. Keep text in the illustrations themselves to a minimum but explain all symbols and abbreviations used. The resolution of the image should be 300dpi.

Tables: Please submit tables as editable text and not as images. Tables can be placed either next to the relevant text in the article, or on separate page(s) at the end (not a mixture of both).

Conclusions

The original contribution of the manuscript and the discussion of implications of findings should be clearly mentioned in this section. Provide a critical assessment of the limitations of the study, and outline possible directions for future research.

References

End References: EASSR requires all references in APA format. All references used in the text should be listed in the alphabetical order of the authors’ surnames at the end of the text. References should be complete and correct. References in the text should include the name(s) of the author(s) with the year of publication in parentheses. List of all these references needs to present at the very end of the paper under the heading of “References”. Use of DOI is highly encouraged. Write the DOI of all the references, if available.

Citation in text: Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa). Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Reference management software such as Mendeley, EndNote etc. are preferable for reference citation.

Revised Submissions

Make sure that you have first 'accepted' all changes previously listed in earlier versions under 'track changes', and that all embedded comments or highlighting of the text have likewise been removed. To avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to use the "spell-check" and "grammar-check" functions of your word-processor.

Copyright

The manuscripts submitted in the EASSR must be original and unpublished. They must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The authors are solely responsible to acquire the permission to reproduce the copyrighted material from other sources, if necessary.

ORCID iD

ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized.

TIBSS requires all the contributing authors and co-authors to provide their ORCID iDs, as they are important for indexing and profiling, but also for enhancing their integral search visibility all over the internet. ORCID iDs are for a lifetime and can be obtained free of charges through a simple registration process at https://orcid.org/. 

 

2. Authors’ Copyright Statement

All authors who submit their manuscript for publication will abide by the following provisions of the copyright transfer:

1. The copyright of the paper rests with the authors and they are transferring the copyright to publish the article and use the article for indexing and storing for public use with due reference to published matter in the name of concerned authors
2. The authors reserve all proprietary rights such as patent rights and the right to use all or part of the article in future works of their own such as lectures, press releases, and reviews of textbooks
3. In the case of republication of the whole, part, or parts thereof, in periodicals or reprint publications by a third party, written permission must be obtained from the Managing Editor of TIBSS
4. The authors declare that the material being presented by them in this paper is their original work, and does not contain or include material taken from other copyrighted sources
5. Wherever such material has been included, it has been clearly indented or/and identified by quotation marks and due and proper acknowledgements given by citing the source at appropriate places
6. The paper, the final version of which they submit, is not substantially the same as any that they had already published elsewhere
7. They declare that they have not sent the paper or any paper substantially the same as the submitted one, for publication anywhere else
8. Furthermore, the author may only post his/her version provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication in this journal and a link is inserted wherever published
9. All contents, parts, written matters, publications are under copyright act taken by TIBSS
10. Published articles will be available for use by scholars and researchers
11. TIBSS is not responsible in any type of claim on publication in our Journal.

 

3. Reviewers' Guidelines

Peer review in all its form plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behave responsibly and ethically. In the peer-review process, the role of peer reviewers is highly critical and inevitable; however, due to inadequate guidance, the peer reviewers are often unaware of their ethical obligations. The International Journal of Trends and Innovations in Business & Social Sciences (TIBSS) adopts Double Blind Peer Review Policy following the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers that has set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, or act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

Peer reviewers should:

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise prerequisite to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making slanderous or derogatory personal comments
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

HOW TO CONDUCT A REVIEW

1- Before you begin

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

• Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
• Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
• Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
• Find out more about the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

2- Managing your review

Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

How to log in and access your review

Your review will be managed via TIBSS’s Journal Managing System. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received, which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system.

Journal-specific instructions

When you write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors available on the journal’s homepage).

First, read the article. You might consider spot-checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.

Methodology

If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

• Unsound methodology
• Discredited method
• Missing processes are known to be influential on the area of reported research
• A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers, examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research, make sure that systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.

Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visuals to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might; therefore, be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process. Manuscripts may also contain database identifiers or accession numbers (e.g. genes) to our database linking program.

Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations, and unclear data tables.

Ethical considerations

Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. Please check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (available from the journal’s homepage).

Overview

If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving yourself time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors).

3- Structuring your review

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow him/her to improve the manuscript. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any demeaning remarks or personal details including your name (unless the journal you are invited to review for employs open peer review).

Providing insights into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article.

• Accept Submission: The reviewer recommends the editor accept the submission without any revision
• Revision Required: The reviewer recommends the editor accept the submission with minor revisions (figured out in Reviewing Form)
• Resubmit for Review: The reviewer recommends major revision and would be happy to review the revised article (when the revised manuscript is submitted by the author/s). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The reviewer recommends the author that this journal is not a good fit for the submission.
• Decline Submission: The reviewer recommends the editor not accept the submission.

Bear in mind that there will be an opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or visit our support centre if you encounter any difficulties.

The final decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. Elsevier plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision if the journal has opted into this function.

4- After your review

Do not forget that even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data like confidential documents. This means you must not share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.

 

4. Reviewers’ Conflict of Interest

The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:

• Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
• Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organisational unit in the past 3 years
• Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author (s) or being supervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
• Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
• Having a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the author(s)
• Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed

It is not considered a Conflict of Interest if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project (e.g. EU or DARPA) or if they have co-organized an event (e.g PC co-chairs).

 

5. Article Processing Charges

TIBSS publishes all its articles in full open access, which means unlimited use and reuse of articles, in addition to giving credit to the authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

TIBSS is published under a Platinum Open Access (POA) arrangement as described by Emerald Publishing.  In the POA arrangement, all costs associated with publishing Open Access articles are arranged by the Publisher (International Research and Publishing Academy - iRAPA).

Authors pay a one-time Article Processing Charge (APC) to cover the costs of peer review administration and management, professional production of articles in PDF and other formats, and dissemination of published papers in various venues, in addition to other publishing functions. There are no charges for rejected articles, no submission charges, and no surcharges based on the length of an article, figures or supplementary data. Some items (Editorials, Corrections, Addendums, Retractions, Comments, etc.) are published free of charge.

Article Processing Charge	National Authors	International Authors
Submission Fee (non-refundable)*	5000 PKR	20 USD
APC (refundable)**	25,000 PKR	105 USD
Total	30,000 PKR	125 USD

Major Steps and Time Breakdown

The Publication Process includes the following four major steps:

1. Desk Review (5-15 days)
2. Peer Review (4-6 weeks)
3. Copyediting (10-15 days)
4. Production (10-15 days)

The submitted manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team to check its strength, uniqueness, and scope. This initial review is known as Desk Review (Initial Screening). The Desk Review is completed in a minimum of 5 days from the day of submission. 

The manuscript that successfully passes the Desk Review is sent for a (Double Blind) Peer Review Process where external reviewers in the respective field of study examine the manuscript. The Peer Review is completed in a minimum of 4 weeks from the day of the Desk Review. However, clearance is required from the accounts department to initiate the Peer Review process. 

If the manuscript successfully passes the Peer Review process, it is sent for Copyediting where the manuscript is reviewed by internal and language experts. The Copyediting is completed in a minimum of 10 days from the day of the completion of the Peer Review Process. 

When the manuscript successfully passes the Copyediting process, it is sent for production where the manuscript is composed as per the journal’s requirement and scheduled for publication. The Composing process takes usually 10 days.