top of page

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

The Journal of Business Sectors [JOBS Journal] accepts scientific articles focused on the defined journal's areas. Only scientific contributions meeting the following requirements can be published:

  • The manuscript is an original scholarly article based on the authors’ own research or an original scholarly review article.

  • The article is original, has not been published previously, and is not currently under review by another journal.

  • The data are original, have not been manipulated, and there are no restrictions preventing their use.

  • The article does not infringe the copyright of any third party; all sources used in the manuscript are clearly cited; and the authors do not engage in excessive citation or self-citation.

  • If the article was supported by an institution or grant, it includes an acknowledgement of financial support.

  • There is no conflict of interest among the co-authors or with any third parties.

  • Authorship of the article is clearly stated, and the corresponding author signs the consent for publication of the manuscript.

  • Authors are responsible for the presentation of their scholarly results. The results must be presented clearly and honestly, and the authors must refrain from any form of falsification or manipulation of data.

  • Authors are required to participate in the peer review process and to respond to all reviewer comments in a timely and professional manner. If the authors agree with the requested changes, they must submit revisions on time. If they disagree with the reviewers’ recommendations or other comments, they must provide objections together with a detailed explanation.

  • If the authors discover any errors or inaccuracies after publication, they must immediately notify the responsible editor of JOBS.

  • Authors agree to minor editorial corrections to the content, including the title, wording, style, and similar adjustments.

  • Authors are required to comply with all ethical standards described in detail in the Ethics Policy section.

​

Authors are responsible for the originality, quality, and formal correctness of the contribution. Contributions in the JOBS Journal are published in the English language only.

​

Journal of Business Sectors is published twice a year:

  • Issue 1 ◦ 1 January – 30 June 

  • Issue 2 ◦ 1 July – 31 December

​

The editors check each accepted article with the anti-plagiarism system Crossref Similarity Check, and Grammarly report to the corresponding author addressing linguistic and formal aspects.  

CONTRIBUTION

Contributions are accepted in the electronic form and format MS Word [.docx] only. Articles prepared using the journal template must be submitted via the editorial system. Authors are required to submit in the JOBS Journals template and follow the structure of the article as instructed by the editors. 

​

STRUCTURE OF THE ARTICLE

The required structure of a submission is as follows:

  • Title of the article

  • Name of the author and co-authors (without academic degree titles) with affiliation, e-mail address and ORCID

  • Abstract according to the instructions in template

  • Keywords

  • JEL Classification

  • Original article text (divided according to template instructions)

  • List of references

  • Acknowledgement (if needed)

Template for submission

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT

The electronicaly filled and signed author's declaration and publicaiton agreement must be submitted along with the  manuscript.

WRITING INSTRUCTIONS

Introduction

Authors state the aim of the research topic and its focus in general, explain its originality, and introduce its structure.

 

Theoretical background

Authors evaluate the current state of the research topic on an international scale. When working on the theoretical part of the paper, authors should predominantly work with articles published in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. It is recommended to use at least 40 sources. The use of monographs is not recommended, other sources should be used minimally. Sources should not be older than 10 years, at least 50% of sources should not by older than 5 years.

 

Research objective, methodology and data

This part of the paper states its aim, detailed methodology and data used. The title of the paper must be compatible with its aim and its content. Using of sophisticated statistic methods is needed. Authors can use descriptive statistics as well.

 

Results and discussion

Authors introduce research results that should be obtained using sophisticated statistical methods, then interpret them in an economic manner, while comparing them with sources listed in the theoretical part, or justify the excellence of their own results. This part should cover a comparison of results with other international results.

 

Conclusion

Authors evaluate whether the aim of the paper was fulfilled and present the main findings of the research. Limitations of the research/results and a direction for further research should be explained.

​

Figures

Tables and figures should be numbered and relevant references must be included in the text. The acceptable labeling for a table is Tab.1 and Fig. 1 for a figure (graph, picture, scheme, etc.). The title of the table or figure has to be on the top of the figure / table. Source has to be located under the table / figure. Due to subsequent graphical processing, it is necessary to insert a link to the figure / table in the text in this template as follows “see Tab. 1. / Figure 1.” and state the formula in bold “<INSERT TAB 1. / FIGURE 1. HERE>” before each visual. 

​

References

In-text citations and the Reference list should follow the referencing style used by the American Psychological Association (APA style). Details concerning this referencing style can be found here. Authors can also use a citation machine  or use (e.g.) a Mendeley software.​

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Author contribution in a scientific article refers to a section where the specific roles and contributions of each author involved in the research and writing process are outlined. This section ensures transparency, accountability, and proper credit for individual contributions to the study. The individual roles in the preparation of the scientific article should be indicated using the initials of the author's first and last name. It is necessary for each co-author to actively participate in the preparation of the scientific article.

​

Common Categories of Author Contributions: conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation; resources; data curation; writing—original draft preparation; writing—review and editing; visualization; supervision; project administration; review & approval; funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

​

Example:  Conceptualization, J.D. and K.Z.; methodology, J.D. and K.Z.; software, J.D.; validation, J.D. and K.F.-M.; formal analysis, J.D.; investigation, J.D., K.F.-M. and K.Z.; resources, K.F.-M. and K.Z.; data curation, J.D.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D. and K.Z.; writing—review and editing, K.Z.; visualization, K.F.-M.; supervision, J.D.; project administration, K.Z.; funding acquisition, K.F.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

FUNDING

This section in the article refers to the financial support received for conducting the research, including resources for data collection, equipment, software, personnel, publication fees, and other research-related expenses. Key Aspects of the Funding Section:

  1. source of funding – Identifies who funded the research (government agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH, EU Horizon); universities or research institutions; private foundations or non-profit organizations; industry or corporate sponsorships);

  2. grant Numbers (if applicable) – many funding agencies provide grant numbers, which should be mentioned for transparency and verification;

  3. funding role – It may specify whether the funding agency had any role (in study design; data collection and analysis; decision to publish; manuscript preparation);

  4. declaration of no funding – if no external funding was received, many journals require a statement.

 

Example: This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 123456). The funding agency had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or decision to publish.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The Data Availability Statement (DAS) in a scientific article informs readers, reviewers, and editors about where and how the data supporting the research can be accessed. It enhances transparency, reproducibility, and credibility in scientific research. In the context is needed to exact defined one from the following opportunity statement:

  • Openly Available Data – Data is publicly accessible in a repository.

  • Data Available Upon Request – Data is available but requires a request.

  • Restricted or Confidential Data – Data cannot be shared due to legal or ethical reasons.

  • No Data Available – The study does not generate new data.

 

Example: The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgment is a part of the scientific article where authors express gratitude to individuals, institutions, or organizations that contributed to the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship. This section enhances transparency and recognizes those who provided support in various ways. Examples:

  1. funding agencies – If funding was received, it should be acknowledged;

  2. research assistants or collaborators – people who helped with data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation but are not co-authors;

  3. institutional support – universities, laboratories, or research centres that provided facilities or resources;

  4. reviewers & editors – if their feedback significantly improved the manuscript;

  5. personal acknowledgments (if appropriate) – mentions of mentors, colleagues, or even family for support.

 

Example: The authors acknowledge the financial support from [Funding Agency Name] (Grant No. XXXX). We also thank [Institution/Organization] for providing research facilities and [Individual’s Name] for their valuable assistance with data analysis and manuscript proofreading

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Conflicts of Interest section in a scientific article discloses any personal, financial, or professional relationships that could influence or bias the research, analysis, or conclusions of the study. It ensures transparency, credibility, and ethical integrity in scientific publishing. Type of conflict of interest: i. financial conflicts; ii. personal or professional relationships; iii. competing research interests; iv. patent or intellectual property interests.

 

Example: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.​

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE

In preparing their articles, the author(s) may use artificial intelligence-assisted activities, such as proofreading the manuscript; assisting with the collection of references and their formatting in accordance with the journal’s submission requirements; creating, improving, correcting, editing or formatting visualisations of existing research data or results; and translating the manuscript for publication purposes.

 

Example: The author(s) shall disclose in the text of the article any use of AI, including the manner in which it was used and the relevant AI tool employed, specifying its name and version.

​

In case the above instructions are not fulfilled by authors, journal editors will reject the contribution due to formal reasons and it will not be evaluated further.

EDITORIAL PROCESS

At the Journal of Business Sectors, we ensure that the Editor-in-Chief, the editorial team, authors and reviewers strictly adhere to the principles of scholarly, publishing and ethical codes of conduct.

​

The editorial process is governed by clearly defined scholarly and ethical standards and is transparent, rigorous and easy to follow.​

Postup publikovania JOBS.drawio.png

DESK REVIEW

Once a manuscript has been received through the OJS system, the Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the submission meets the following criteria:

  • the topic of the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal;

  • the formal structure of the manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines, including the prescribed formatting requirements for scientific articles;

  • the relevant ethical standards have been accepted;

  • the scientific quality of the manuscript is high;

  • the similarity score checked using iThenticate is within an acceptable range, i.e. ≤ 10%;

  • the scope and manner of the use of artificial intelligence, checked using iThenticate, comply with the editorial requirements;

  • the linguistic quality of the manuscript, checked using Grammarly, is high, i.e. the score is ≥ 90%.

 

If the manuscript meets the editorial requirements, the Editor-in-Chief appoints a Scientific Editor, who organises the peer review process.

​

If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements but may be revised, the Editor-in-Chief asks the author(s) to revise the manuscript and resubmit it through the OJS system.

​

If the manuscript cannot be revised in such a way as to meet the journal’s requirements, the Editor-in-Chief rejects it and informs the corresponding author by e-mail.

​

The Editor-in-Chief completes the desk review within 10 days at the latest.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process is conducted as a double-blind review. Before manuscripts are sent to reviewers for critical assessment, all information that could enable the identification of the author(s) is removed.

​

The Scientific Editor selects two reviewers and sends them the anonymised version of the manuscript for assessment through the OJS system. Reviewers are selected from the journal’s internal reviewer database, which is updated regularly. Authors are not permitted to recommend reviewers for the assessment of their own manuscript.

​

Reviewers evaluate the quality of the submitted manuscript and provide a recommendation regarding the next steps in the editorial process. The assessment focuses primarily on whether the manuscript meets the following criteria:

  • Is the topic of the manuscript consistent with the overall scope of the journal?

  • Is the topic relevant and of interest to specialist readers?

  • Do the title and abstract accurately reflect the actual content of the manuscript?

  • Are the aims of the manuscript appropriately defined and clearly formulated?

  • Is the theoretical argumentation adequate and well developed?

  • Are appropriate research methods used to address the research problem?

  • Are the main findings and conclusions clearly formulated?

  • Does the manuscript have a clear structure corresponding to the stated aims?

  • Does the manuscript contain appropriate critical perspectives and the author’s own views on the issue under analysis?

  • Are the conclusions and findings valuable and useful?

  • Are the bibliography and information sources sufficient and up to date?

 

Reviewers submit their reports through the OJS system. 

 

If both reviews are positive, the responsible editor asks the author(s) to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. If one review is positive and the other is negative, the Scientific Editor requests a third review. If the third review is positive, the peer review process continues. In such a case, the Scientific Editor does not take the negative review into account. If the third review is negative, the Editor-in-Chief proposes to the Editorial Board that the manuscript be rejected, providing the reasons for this recommendation.

​

The peer review process usually takes approximately three months. If the author(s) are unable to respond adequately to the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript may require a second round of review, which may extend the duration of the review process. In the event of a delay in the review process on the part of the journal, the author(s) will be informed of the reason for the delay. The author(s) may withdraw their manuscript at any stage of the peer review process.

​

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript and may recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. acceptance in its present form;

  2. acceptance after minor revisions;

  3. acceptance after moderate revisions and additional assessment;

  4. acceptance after major revisions and additional assessment;

  5. rejection.

DECISSION BY EDITORIAL BOARD

The author(s) should respond to all reviewers’ comments and recommendations within 30 days of receiving the review reports through the OJS system. All changes made to the revised manuscript must be highlighted in colour, and the author(s) must provide a separate document explaining how they have responded to the reviewers’ comments. Both documents must be uploaded to the OJS system.

If the reviewer(s) recommend decision 1 or 2, the Scientific Editor assesses the outcome of the peer review process and decides on the next steps. If the Scientific Editor agrees with the recommendation under decision 1, the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board for approval through the Editor-in-Chief. If the Scientific Editor agrees with the recommendation under decision 2, the author(s) are asked to make minor revisions. The Scientific Editor then checks whether the comments have been adequately addressed and decides on the next stage of the process.

​

If the reviewer(s) recommend decision 3 or 4, the Scientific Editor sends the revised version of the manuscript, together with the authors’ response, to the relevant reviewer(s) for further assessment. The peer review process may involve several rounds until the Scientific Editor is able to make a fair and transparent recommendation on whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication or rejected.

 

If the Scientific Editor suspects reviewer bias or a failure to comply with ethical standards, another reviewer is appointed.

In the event of substantial changes to the manuscript, the Scientific Editor may again ask the Editor-in-Chief to arrange a check of the linguistic quality of the manuscript, to request a plagiarism report and to conduct detection of AI use in the preparation of the manuscript.

​

The Scientific Editor comprehensively evaluates the course and outcome of the peer review process and submits the relevant recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief submits the recommendation to publish or reject the manuscript to the members of the journal’s Editorial Board. The Editorial Board makes its decision independently and may reject the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief. The decision of the Editorial Board is valid if it is supported by more than half of its members. If the Editorial Board votes against the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief, each member is required to provide reasons for their decision.​

ACCEPT FOR PUBLICATION

The final decision on whether to publish or reject a manuscript is made by the journal’s Editorial Board on the basis of the recommendation submitted by the Editor-in-Chief.

​

Manuscripts are sent to the members of the Editorial Board without the author’s name, affiliation or acknowledgements. Members of the Editorial Board are required to inform the Editor-in-Chief of their decision by e-mail within 10 days at the latest.

Once publication of the manuscript has been approved, the article is published on the journal’s website within 15 days in the Progress Issue section.

​

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript. Reasons for rejection may include:

  • low scientific quality or a low degree of originality;

  • the manuscript falls outside the thematic scope of the journal;

  • the manuscript does not comply with the formal requirements or ethical standards;

  • citation manipulation;

  • an inadequate response to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, and failure to make all necessary revisions;

  • the manuscript contains problematic attributes, such as misleading or defamatory content, confidential information disclosed without the permission of the relevant party, and similar issues.

 

The corresponding author is informed of the outcome of the peer review process by e-mail and has the right to respond to the review reports. If the corresponding author raises an objection to the review reports, the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Editor shall examine the objection within 30 days and inform the author of the outcome. The author(s) have the right to revise the manuscript and resubmit it through the OJS system.​

PUBLICATION

After the successful completion of the peer review process, the journal’s editorial office carries out the final editorial revisions, including formatting and language proofreading, in order to ensure that the article meets the required formal standards, contains all necessary elements and is grammatically correct.

​

The manuscript then enters the production stage. The final version of the article is submitted for graphic processing, during which the final layout and design of the article are prepared and the publication PDF is created. At the same time, the authors’ identification details are checked, in particular the accuracy of names, affiliations and ORCID iDs. A DOI is then assigned to the article and registered in the Crossref registration system. Once these steps have been completed, the article is published on the journal’s website. The Editor-in-Chief informs the corresponding author of this by e-mail within seven days at the latest.

​

The average period from submission of an article to its publication is 110 days. This period may be extended where the manuscript has undergone several rounds of peer review or where the editorial office has a large number of accepted articles. In such cases, articles are published in the order in which the peer review process has been completed.

​

All articles published in the Journal of Business Sectors are “freely available on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself” (from the BOAI definition of open access). The Journal of Business Sectors provides access to its content under an open access model pursuant to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).

​

In the event of any complaints, objections or concerns relating to a submitted or published article, please contact the journal’s editorial office at: editor@jobsjournal.eu. Upon receipt of your e-mail, we will propose a procedure and timeframe for resolving the matter.

RESOLVING COMPLAINTS AND APPEAL

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS PROCEDURE

The rejection of a manuscript may be perceived by the author(s) as incorrect, biased or unfair. The Editorial Board of the journal places considerable emphasis not only on maintaining a high scientific and ethical standard of published articles, but also on the consistent application of a transparent and fair approach to authors. For this reason, the following procedures have been established for such situations.

APPEAL AGAINST AN EDITORIAL DECISION

If a scientific article has been rejected by the Editorial Board and the author(s) disagree with the decision, they may lodge an appeal against that decision. The appeal must provide relevant grounds and must be submitted to the following e-mail address: editor@jobsjournal.eu.

 

Upon receipt of the appeal request, the corresponding author will be informed whether the request has been accepted for consideration or rejected. If the request is rejected, the corresponding author will be informed within 10 days. The assessment of an accepted appeal request may take a maximum of 30 days. The Editorial Board will adopt a decision and inform the corresponding author in writing. The final decision on the appeal is not subject to further challenge.

COMPLAINTS CONCERNING EDITORIAL MANAGEMENT

If the author(s) have any concerns regarding the work of the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief or the Scientific Editor of the journal, or if they wish to submit any ethical complaint, they should contact the publisher of the journal by e-mail at: center@ecesr.eu.

EDITORIAL REQUIREMENTS

A complaint or appeal must be submitted through the corresponding author and must include the following information:

  1. the title of the article and the names of the authors;

  2. information about the corresponding author: academic title, ORCID iD, institutional affiliation and position;

  3. the substance of the complaint, including relevant grounds;

  4. any other relevant information necessary for the objective assessment of the complaint or appeal.

 

The Editorial Board of the journal requires a professional and respectful approach and undertakes to follow the same standard in its own conduct. Any unprofessional, inappropriate or discourteous behaviour by the corresponding author will not be tolerated by either the Editorial Board or the publisher, and the relevant complaint will not be considered.

bottom of page