Theoretical and Empirical Manuscripts
The IJESMES affiliates which handle theoretical and empirical manuscripts can be found on our Journal Matrix. These editorial guidelines reflect the Academies’ policy with regard to reviewing theoretical and empirical manuscripts for publication and presentation in each of these affiliates. The primary criterion upon which manuscripts are judged is whether the research advances the discipline. The specific guidelines which are followed by referees is displayed on the following page. It shows the areas of evaluation to which each manuscript is subjected. Key points include currency, interest, and relevancy. Theoretical manuscripts are particularly vulnerable to problems in literature review. In order for theoretical research to advance a discipline, it must address the literature which exists in the discipline to support conclusions or models which extend knowledge and understanding. Consequently, referees for theoretical manuscripts pay particular attention to completeness of literature review and appropriateness of conclusions drawn from that review. Empirical manuscripts are particularly vulnerable to methodological problems. In order to advance the literature, empirical manuscripts must employ appropriate and effective sampling and statistical analysis techniques. However, empirical papers must also incorporate thorough literature reviews in order to advance the literature. Referees will pay close attention to the conclusions which are drawn from statistical analyses and their consistency with the literature. As the last question on the referee guidelines suggests, we ask referees to be as specific as possible in indicating what must be done to make a manuscript acceptable for journal publication. This embodies a primary objective of the Academy: to assist authors in the research process. Our Editorial Policy is one which is supportive, rather than critical. We encourage all authors who are not successful in a first attempt to rewrite the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions of the referees. We will be pleased to referee future versions and rewrites of manuscripts and work with authors in achieving their research goals.
Educational and Pedagogic Manuscripts
The IJESMES affiliates which handle educational and pedagogic manuscripts can be found on our Journal Matrix. These editorial guidelines reflect the Academies’ policy with regard to reviewing educational and pedagogic manuscripts for publication and presentation in each of these affiliates. The primary criterion upon which manuscripts are judged is whether the research advances the teaching profession. The specific guidelines which are followed by referees is displayed on the following page. It shows the areas of evaluation to which each manuscript is subjected. Key points include currency, interest, relevancy and usefulFness to educators. In order for educational or pedagogic manuscripts to be useful to educators, they must address appropriate literature to support conclusions, teaching methodologies or pedagogies. Consequently, referees pay particular attention to completeness of literature review and appropriateness of conclusions drawn from that review. Pedagogies or teaching methodologies must be well described with sound foundations in order to be useful to educators. Referees will pay particular attention to such issues in judging manuscripts. In every case, educational or pedagogic manuscripts must embody well developed and well documented ideas in order to be useful to educators. Referees will pay close attention to the ideas presented in the manuscript and how well they are presented and supported. As the last question on the referee guidelines suggests, we ask referees to be as specific as possible in indicating what must be done to make a manuscript acceptable for journal publication. This embodies a primary objective of the Academy: to assist authors in the research process. Our Editorial Policy is one which is supportive, rather than critical. We encourage all authors who are not successful in a first attempt to rewrite the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions of the referees. We will be pleased to referee future versions and rewrites of manuscripts and work with authors in achieving their research goals.
The International Academy for Case Studies is the IJESMES affiliate which handles cases, publishes proceedings and the Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies. These editorial guidelines reflect the Academy’s policy with regard to reviewing cases for publication and presentation. The Academy is interested in cases in any discipline, any area, and any subject. Cases may be any length and any level of difficulty. The Academy strongly believes that any subject and any course can benefit from well prepared cases. To that end, we judge submissions to conferences and for journal consideration on the value of the case as a teaching tool. Cases may be presented in narrative style or in dialogue. The case should provide sufficient information to be able to accomplish the case objectives, and should be written in a fashion to draw and hold student attention. Cases should focus upon a decision point and should lead a reader to a point at which some decision or series of strategies must be developed. The student’s task should be to analyze the case and any outside information which is pertinent and to formulate a course of action. Referees will be most concerned about the development of a strong decision point. Cases must be accompanied by an Instructor’s Note, which will be described in following sections. Cases may be any length and need not conform to any specific guidelines. We encourage case authors to use writing styles and approaches which they believe will be useful in making the case an appropriate teaching tool. Cases may be drawn from field research. In such cases, publication permission from an appropriate officer in the business should be obtained. Cases may also be drawn from library research, public or published sources. Finally, cases may be designed by the case writer to illustrate a specific point or problem or to facilitate student mastery of concepts. Cases must begin with a description of the case which identifies the area, difficulty level, and length of the case. It is important that authors choose a single subject for the primary focus of the case. Please be aware that a case appropriate for any given level can also be used by higher levels. The reverse is not necessarily true. A case appropriate for use at the graduate level would be appropriate for advanced seniors, but not for typical seniors. Authors should be guided in their classification by considering appropriateness for typical college students at the various levels of study. The case description should follow the format described in the following section.
The primary subject matter of this case concerns (choose one discipline or subject). Secondary issues examined include (list as many secondary issues as the case contains). The case has a difficulty level of (choose one of the following: one, appropriate for freshman level courses; two, appropriate for sophomore level courses; three, appropriate for junior level courses; four, appropriate for senior level courses; five, appropriate for first year graduate students; six, appropriate for second year graduate students; seven, appropriate for doctoral students). The case is designed to be taught in (indicate how many) class hours and is expected to require (indicate how many) hours of outside preparation by students
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE SYNOPSIS
The Editors encourage authors to be creative in this section. Use of selected dialogue from the case, comments about class usefulness or student responses to use of the case, or any other information which authors feel is valuable may be used. The synopses should capture the attention and interest of users. The synopsis should follow the format described in the following section.
In this section, present a brief overview of the case. The synopsis should be a maximumof 300 words. Be creative. This section will be the primary selling point of your case. Use this section to sell your case.
BODY OF THE CASE
The body of the case should follow the synopsis. This section should use headings to divide the case as appropriate. The body should be well organized and flow through to the decision point and the closure of the case.
Instructor’s Notes may be the most important aspect of a case. They lead an instructor through the case and support the design and execution of the teaching of the case. They should be designed for less experienced case users and should make teaching the case an interesting and successful process. The note should conform to a standard approach and should contain sections as described in the following subheadings.
Case Notes should begin with a repeat of the case title and authors. The Note should include a description of the case and present any pertinent information about the case or how it was developed. Explain how the case might be used in a class and discuss specific strategies and recommendations for teaching approaches, student assignments, or presentation methods.
The Note should continue with a case overview. Describe for the instructor what the case contains, point out pertinent information or issues, and review the material presented. This is an important aspect of the Note because it allows instructors to see what students should be extracting as they read the case.
Some users like to have questions included in a case to start discussion. Others like to devise their own approach to using an individual case. Consequently, the Editors recommend that discussion questions appear in the Instructor’s Note. This allows a case user to make an individual choice about utilizing or assigning questions. Present questions which can be used as student assignments or in class discussions of the case. For each question, provide an answeror response. Arrange the questions so that answers immediately follow each question. Discussion questions often take the form of an analysis. Financial analyses, environmental analyses, market assessments, etc., frequently are valuable aspects of teaching a case. If an analytic question is posed, case authors should include complete analyses as the answer for that question. For open ended or broad discussion questions, include possible answers or responses which could occur and describe how such questions can be used in the classroom.
If additional information is provided, such as industry notes, industry averages, comparison data, etc., include it in the Note as exhibits. Explain the information included, and describe its use in teaching the case.
If appropriate, include an epilogue which describes what actually happened or displays any information which you think might be of interest to instructors or students. An epilogue might not be appropriate for all cases, so feel free to omit this section.
The exhibit on the following page displays the referee guidelines for reviewing cases and instructor’s notes. As the guidelines suggest, primary importance is placed on readability, interest, and usefulness as a teaching tool.
As the last question on the referee guidelines suggests, we ask referees to be as specific as possible in indicating what must be done to make a case acceptable for journal publication. This embodies a primary objective of the Academy: to assist authors in the research process. Our Editorial Policy is one which is supportive, rather than critical. We encourage all authors who are not successful in a first attempt to rewrite the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions of the referees. We will be pleased to referee future versions and rewrites of manuscripts and work with authors in achieving their research goals.
ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGES
International Journal Entrepreneurship & Small and Medium Enterprises (IJESMES) is self-financed and does not receive funding from any institution/government. Hence, the Journal operates solely through processing charges we receive from the authors and some academic/corporate sponsors. The handling fee is required to meet its maintenance. Being an Open Access Journal, IJESMES does not collect subscription charges from readers that enjoy free online access to the articles. Authors are hence required to pay a fair handling fee for processing their articles. However, there are no submission charges. Authors are required to make payment only after their manuscript has been accepted for publication.
|No. of pages||Article Processing Charge|
|9-15||EURO 981 + EURO 95 per additional page > 5|
|16 onwards||EURO 1646 + EURO 99 Per additional page > 15|
(Note: Effective from 1st January, 2020)
The basic article processing fee or manuscript handling cost is as per the price mentioned above on the other hand it may vary based on the extensive editing, colored effects, complex equations, taxes, extra elongation of no. of pages of the article, etc.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Author or University (Institution) of author has relationship that could influence or affect the author’s work inappropriately; a conflict of interest may exist. The potential conflicts of interest may include but are not limited to personal, academic or political relationships; employment; consultancies or honoraria; and financial connections such as stock ownership and funding. Although an author may not feel that there are conflicts, disclosure of relationships and interests that could be viewed by others as conflicts of interest affords a more transparent and prudent process. All authors for International Journal of Entrepreneurship must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest. The Journal may publish such disclosures if judged to be important to readers.
Present an accurate account of research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Present sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Cite all relevant references. Identify any hazards inherent in conducting the research. Ensure they have written and produced entirely original work and ensure that where they have used the work and/or words of others, this has been properly attributed and accurately quoted. Avoid self-plagiarism. Avoid fragmenting research to maximize the number of articles for publication.
If author be found to be in breach of this code of ethics or guilty of research misconduct, the journal reserves the right to reject/retract or withdraw the paper, decline further submissions from the offending authors for a period of up to five years and inform all interested parties including relevant journal editors and authors, the author’s department head and/or institutional office of scientific misconduct.
The Editor of a peer-reviewed journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles should be accepted for publication. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the editorial board and, while seeking guidance via peer review, may still reject a manuscript without review if considered inappropriate for the journal. Evaluate each manuscript for its intellectual content without regard to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, political philosophy, citizenship, domicile or institutional affiliation of the authors. Not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than those involved in the publishing process as appropriate.Disclose any potential conflict of interest. Pass manuscripts in which they have potential conflicts of interests to another member of the editorial board to review and consider. Not use privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage. On receiving a challenge to the authenticity/integrity of an article, consult the publisher and contribute to the investigation and responsive measures which follow. Where a member of the Editorial Board has submitted a manuscript to the journal, the peer review process will be handled entirely independently from that Editor; they will not know who the handling editorial board member or reviewers are. The Editor will declare their membership of the board in the declaration of interest section for any published manuscript.
Disclose any competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. Evaluate each manuscript for its intellectual content without regard to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, political philosophy, citizenship, domicile or institutional affiliation of the authors. Review manuscripts with reasonable speed and efficiency. Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Conduct the review objectively and avoid any personal criticism of the author. Express views clearly with supporting arguments. Inform the Editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge, whether published or concurrently under review elsewhere. Inform the editor of suspected research misconduct (e.g. data fabrication).
781 total views, 1 views today