Guidelines

Instructions for authors - downloadable

• Paper template MS Word

Peer review policy

All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editorial screening and anonymized refereeing by two anonymous referees. The initial editorial screening is usually done within a week of manuscript submission and its technical preparation. Each round of the review process normally takes 3–4 months to complete. You can track the status of your submission directly in the online system. If there is no change in the online system within 4 months of submission, you can contact the editor.

• Guide for reviewers

Instruction for Authors

European Journal of Business Science and Technology is an English-language, open access, double-blind refereed journal. The journal covers the broad range of areas related to empirical business sciences and empirical finance including interdisciplinary topics and newly developing areas of business, especially implementing new technology. Empirical advances in buyer behavior, organizational behavior, marketing, business decisions, processes and activities, including corporate finance, risk, investments and business financing are evaluated on a regular basis.

The preference is given to studies that are relevant to a broad international audience over single-economy studies. The text should provide an original contribution must be an original unpublished work.

Manuscripts should be submitted online. Electronic submission substantially reduces the editorial processing and reviewing times. Please follow the link “Submit online” on the website www.ejobsat.cz. Submission is completed upon receipt of a confirmation e-mail.

Please write your text in good English (American or British usage is accepted, but not a mixture of these).

Please, submit four files:

• Title page – on a separate page the author should include informative title, his or her full name (co-authors’ full names), including all academic, scientific and pedagogic titles and detailed address of the institution with postal code, phone and fax numbers and/or e-mail address and acknowledgment. The author who is responsible for any correspondence with the journal should be clearly indicated.
• Text file – should not exceed 30 typeset pages or 55,000 characters including spaces in length. Remove names, affiliations, and acknowledgment footnote from the text file. That is, the paper uploaded should be an anonymous draft for review. The text file should be provided in MS Word or TeX/LaTeX together with the:
• PDF version – PDF version (the author is responsible that the MS Word or TeX/LaTeX version corresponds to the PDF file).
• Archive with figures – separate file should contain all figures in zip format.

It is recommended to use the EJOBSAT template for MS Word available HEREhere.

Using the template shortens overall publication times.

The text file should include:

• the title should be concise and informative
• the abstract (no more than 100–150 words) should be informative, giving the scope and emphasizing the main conclusions, results, or significance of the work described. It should be complete and self-explanatory. References should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.
• three to five keywords established in the field, typically words or phrases. Initial letters of keywords are written in lowercase. The keywords will be used for indexing purposes.
• up to 6 appropriate JEL codes (classification codes number, and the text itself). The available codes may be accessed at JEL: http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php.
• the main text (specified below).

Please, respect the predefined styles in EJOBSAT template for each part of the document. If you are not able to use the styles in template, please follow these instructions for formatting and content of the main text:

• A4 paper size with 2.5 cm (or 1 inch) margins, portrait orientation;
• the paper text should use Normal style (Cambria 12pt font size, single line spacing, justified);
• headings should use styles Heading1, Heading2 etc. No more than three levels of headings should be used in the main text. Section heading style examples (all flush left):

• as much as possible, tables and graphs should be put in the text and commented in the text as well,
• Figures should be included directly in the file you submit and also inserted separately as individual attachments. They should be at high resolution (300 dpi). All figures must be numbered consecutively using Arabic numbers in bold type (e.g. Figure 1, etc.). Labelling of figures should be placed above the figure and the source under them. The size of a figure should be commensurate with the amount and value of the information the figure has to convey. All figures should be in monochrome (greyscale). Center figures on the width of the page. Position figures at the top or the bottom of a page. Do not assemble figures at the back of your paper, but place them as close as possible to where they are mentioned in the main text. Pictures are also inserted separately as individual attachments (zip file). Figure should be formatted using Figure style (in MS Word).
• Tables should be numbered consecutively (in Arabic numbers) and centered on the page width. Table headings should be placed above tables. Use horizontal lines do emphasize Table head and the end of table. Avoid vertical lines where possible. Detailed explanations or entries should be typed directly beneath the table. Position tables at the top or bottom of a page and place them as close as possible to where they are mentioned in the main text.
• mathematical equations should be considered as an editable text and not as images and appropriately punctuated. Please, in MS Word, use Equation tool (Insert → Equation) to create displayed mathematical equations;
• generally, we recommend avoiding frequented footnotes especially short footnotes for bibliographic references;
• the main text should be structured as follows:

• Introduction – State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.
• Theoretical framework/calculation – A Theoretical framework should extend, not repeat, the background to the article already dealt with in the Introduction and lay the foundation for further work. In contrast, a Calculation section represents a practical development from a theoretical basis.
• Methodology and data – Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference: only relevant modifications should be described.
• Results – Clear and concise presentation of the results including interpretation related to the theoretical framework. If the nature of a paper allows it, state the statistical significance of the results as well.
• Discussion – In discussion, please provide a confrontation of the achieved results with previously published papers, author’s opinion of established differences, his/her attitude to the results. This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature. A combined Discussion and Conclusions section is often appropriate.
• Conclusions – The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion and Conclusions section.
• Acknowledgements – An acknowledgement is necessary when the realization of the paper was supported by a grant agency or other external resources. Always state the full name of the organization which provided funding for the project and its number in square brackets. E.g. This paper was supported by Grant Agency [nr. 1234567890].
• References – Provide in-text citations using the following style Name Author (year of publication). In the final list of references, format citations using the Harvard style e.g. (Comfort, 1997). Arrange the citations in alphabetical order, based on the first author’s name, without numbering. The reference list must contain citations of all used sources and cannot contain citations of sources which were not actually used.

References should appear as follows:

BENEŠOVÁ, A., ŘEZNÍČEK, V. a BLAŽEK, J. 1997. Hodnocení souboru genotypů jabloní vyselektovaných na rezistenci vůči strupovitosti (Venturia inaequalis Cke. Vint.). Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun., 46(4): 47–56.

COMFORT, A. 1997. A good age. 2nd Edition. London: Mitchell Beazley.

HOLLIDAY, A., HYDE, M. and KULLMAN, J. 2004. Intercultural communication: an advanced resource book. London: Routledge. [Online]. Available at: http://www.dawsonera.com/. [Accessed: 15 August 2011].

JONES, P. and EVANS, J. 2006. Urban regeneration, governance and the state: exploring notions of distance and proximity. Urban Studies 43(9): 1491–1509. Academic 4 Search Complete [Online]. Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com. [Accessed 2010, August 17].

ROEDER, K., HOWDESHELL, J., FULTON, F., et. al. 1967. Nerve cells and insect behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

SATTLER, M.A. 2007. Education for a more sustainable architecture. In: Sun, wind and architecture: proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. National University of Singapore, 22–24 November. Singapore: Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, 844–851.

WIT, J. S., PONEMAN, D. B. and GALLUCI, R. L. 2004. Going critical : the first North Korean nuclear crisis. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

• If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: Eq. (A.1), Eq. (A.2), etc.; in a subsequent appendix, Eq. (B.1) and so on. Similarly for tables and figures: Tab. A.1; Fig. A.1, etc.

Additionally, the authors may be asked to provide whatever material is needed to ensure that their results can be replicated (unless the data are confidential). This includes datasets (or instructions on how to access third-party datasets, accompanied by a proper description of what was used in the paper), computer programs and codes, technical appendices, supplementary tables and proofs, etc. In that case the data will be published on the journal website in order to allow further scientific discussion (the data should be accompanied by a “readme” explaining the variables, the sources and the structure of the data files).

The editor reserves the right to return to the authors any manuscript for substantive revision and resubmission without consulting the referees. The editor may also reject any manuscript that in his opinion is not suitable for publication in EJOBSAT, without specification of any reasons for doing so.

If the submission satisfies the journal requirements, it is sent to two referees. The journal uses the double-blind referee process, that is, neither referee knows the author(s) or the other referee, and vice versa. On receiving both referee reports, the editor decides either to accept or reject the paper (in the case of similar referee recommendations) or to request a third report (if the two referees disagree). The editor may also send the manuscript back to the authors for substantive revision and resubmission without consulting the referees.

Guide for Reviewers

European Journal of Business Science and Technology (EJOBSAT) is an English-language, open access, double-blind refereed journal published by Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics.

Only high-quality manuscripts following standards of scientific work and corresponding to the scope of the journal will be considered for publishing. The editors may reject any manuscript that in his opinion is not suitable for publication in EJOBSAT, without specification of any reasons for doing so.

The editor reserves a right to return to authors any manuscript for substantive revision and re-submission without consulting reviewers.

All the reviewed manuscripts must be in accordance with the Instructions for Authors.

If a submission satisfies the journal requirements, two reviewers are asked for a review. The editors ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions. The journal uses the double-blind peer-review process (the review process is anonymous - the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept hidden). On receiving both reviewers’ reports, the editors decide either to accept or reject the manuscript (in case of similar reviewer recommendations) or to request a third report.

Review process description

Reviewers are appointed via the journal system. A notification e-mail is sent to reviewers with an invitation to review a manuscript.

Reviewers should take the following steps:

1. Notify submission's editors whether they will undertake the review.

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please consider if the manuscript matches your area of expertise and if you have time for the review.

2. Declare all existing competing interests.

Accepting a manuscript for a review you declare that you have no financial or non-financial, professional, or personal competing interests in relation to the reviewed manuscript.

3. Download and review (on screen or by printing) the files associated with the submission.

4. Fill in a review form in the journal system.

The journal system will guide you to fill in appropriate fields and evaluate given criteria.

5. If necessary, upload additional files for the editor and/or author to support the report.

6. Select a recommendation for the journal editors:

a. Accept the paper without changes or with minor revisions

b. Accept the paper with major revisions

c. Reject the paper but allow to re-submit after extensive review

d. Reject the paper

7. Submit the review form to complete the review process.

Please note that if you recommend acceptance, the manuscripts should provide high-quality original approaches, strictly implemented methods or models, and scientific advances in the field. Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revisions is typical. If recommending revisions, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn. Considering that many authors are not native English speakers, the writing must be excellent when the manuscript is in the final form.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

The contents and existence of a submitted manuscript must be considered as confidential until the manuscript is published. If the manuscript is not accepted for the journal, then all aspects of its review in this journal are to be considered as confidential without time limit. Reviewers are kindly requested to adhere to this important principle.

Reviewers are expected to act in accordance with COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Acknowledgement

A meaningful peer review is a time-consuming but a crucial process for publishing high quality research outputs. Therefore, we are grateful for reviewers’ efforts and advice. Thoughtful reviews enhance manuscripts quality, which in turn provide better information to readers, ultimately improve research contribution of manuscripts. Thank you.

Attachments