EDITORIAL POLICY

The evaluation for scientific acceptance of the articles follows the peer review procedure that is based on the "double-blind" method; each paper will be evaluated by two independent specialists, external to the Editorial Board.

Our reviewers will evaluate submitted papers based on criteria such as:

The authors will be informed about possible recommendations for improving the paper and the final decision after the evaluation process.

If the reviewers decide that the article is suitable for publication, it will be published in “Journal of Financial and Monetary Economics”. If the reviewers ask for revision of the article, the authors can make the appropriate changes and the article will be evaluated for the second time. If the reviewers reject the article, then the notification will be sent to the authors.

When the reviewers have divergent assessments for the same article, the Editor-in-Chief will decide, based on the reviews received, or will submit the article to a third specialist.

Submission of an article implies that it contains original work that has not been previously published and that is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder. Authors are required to transfer copyright and publishing rights to the journal under the CC by NC ND license.

The Editorial Board of Journal of Financial and Monetary Economics considers plagiarism to be an unacceptable practice. Therefore, every manuscript received for publication by the journal is checked for originality. We employ Grammarly as our primary tool for plagiarism detection. If the editors or the peer reviewers detect a case of plagiarism before publication, the author(s) will be alerted and requested to clarify and/or correct the issue. If the analysis indicates extensive plagiarism (more than approximately 25%) the article is rejected, the author(s) is (are) forbidden to submit further articles for two years and the author(s)’s institution can be notified.

AI POLICY

Contributors to the journal who use an artificial intelligence (AI) tool/service to directly generate any part of the manuscript text must provide transparent, detailed and clear information; otherwise it will be considered academic misconduct. Correctly declaring the use of these AI tools supports transparency and trust between editorial partners: authors, reviewers, editors and readers.

The journal allows the use of an AI tool/service for text correction, especially for linguistic compliance for authors who are not native English speakers, text beautification and automatic sorting of references, but does not recommend the use of AI in data analysis and interpretation, opinion and reflection development and conclusions, and it cannot replace an author.

If any part of the manuscript was written using artificial intelligence, this should be described in the Methodology section, for example: “In developing this work, the authors used [name of specific artificial intelligence tool] for [purpose of use: e.g., literary research/text beautification, etc.]. After using this AI tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content and take responsibility for the content of the work.”

ETHICS POLICY

It is of utmost importance to JFME to deliver high-quality scientific publication that enhances public confidence in scientific developments. JFME supports the considerable efforts of the journal editors and the voluntary work of peer reviewers in maintaining academic integrity.

JFME assumes the responsibility to apply fair, rigorous evaluation, together with strict ethical policies and standards that ensure the publication of high-quality scientific works.
The ethical obligations of editors aim to provide an impartial review of all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each work on its own merits and without regard to the religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, experience or institutional affiliation of the author(s). The responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript lies with the editor and the editor-in-chief.

The responsible and prudent exercise of this duty normally requires that the editor seek the advice of reviewers, chosen for their expertise in the field, good judgment, and the quality and veracity of the manuscripts submitted for publication.

However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they are considered by the editors to be unsuitable for the journal, particularly if they fail the similarity check, are not written in acceptable English, or for other ethical reasons. Editors or any member of the editorial staff are ethically prohibited from disclosing any information about a manuscript under review to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought.

Regarding the ethical obligations of authors, they must consider not practicing plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism refers to the fact that the author republishes a work in its entirety or reuses it in a new one.

If the work represents a development, then the faithful replication of the text or results previously published by the author must clearly state the source. Authors must ensure that, if the material is taken from other sources (including their own published materials), the source is clearly cited and, where appropriate, permission for citation is obtained. Authors must avoid excessive self-citations and should not point out a particular work as a bibliographical reference if they have not read the cited work.

In order to comply with best practices, it is important to disclose conflicts of interest, and at the time of submitting the work, authors are encouraged to include a declaration regarding any conflicts of interest if there are financial connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that could raise the issue of bias regarding the work developed.

Regarding the ethics of reviewers, selected reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate the research presented in a manuscript or know that prompt evaluation will be impossible should immediately notify the editor or should ask the editor for the possibility of postponing the evaluation and to meet a reasonable return deadline as agreed with the editor.

Based on the standards of maintaining a high level of scientific expression, reviewers should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the theoretical and practical level, the connections and rationality of the interpretation.

Reviewers should respect the independence of the author's thinking, impartially evaluate the work and ensure the confidentiality of the evaluated information.

The reviewer's comments should be pertinent, explained clearly, built on his own judgment and founded in the specialized literature, being expressed in such a way that the comments are easily understood by the editor and the author. If reviewers notice substantial similarities between the content of the author's manuscript and published works or manuscripts submitted to other journals, they should state this in the review form.