Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
- The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
AUTHOR’S MANUSCRIPT GUIDE
The author (s) guarantees that the research results presented in the manuscript represent an original independent work, and do not contain incorrect borrowings and plagiarism, which may be revealed during the process of checking the manuscript through the plagiarism checking system.
Authors are responsible for publishing articles showing signs of unethical behavior, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, self-citation, falsification, fabrication, data misrepresentation, false authorship, duplication, conflicts of interest, and deception.
The principle of confirmation of sources. The author (s) undertakes to correctly indicate the scientific and other sources that he (s) used (s) in the course of the research. In the case of using any parts of someone else's work and / or borrowing statements from another author (s), the manuscript must contain bibliographic references indicating the author (s) of the original source. Information obtained from questionable sources should not be used in the preparation of the manuscript. If the reviewers, scientific editor, member (s) of the editorial board of the journal have doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the research results, the author (s) must provide additional materials to confirm the results or facts presented in the manuscript.
Correction of errors in the publishing process. In case of errors and inaccuracies in the work at any stage of the publication process, the authors undertake to urgently inform the scientific editor about this and provide assistance in eliminating or correcting the error for publication on the journal's website of the corresponding correction (Erratum or Corrigendum) with comments. If gross errors are found that cannot be corrected, the author (s) must withdraw the manuscript / article.
Publication Ethics Principle. Authors are required to comply with ethical standards related to criticism or comments regarding research, as well as with respect to interaction with the editorial board regarding peer review and publication. Failure to comply with ethical principles by the authors is regarded as a gross violation of publication ethics and gives rise to the removal of the manuscript from peer review and / or publication.
Principles of Publication Ethics for Reviewers The principle of objectivity of peer review. Reviewer (s) of the journal Fuoye journal of accounting and management "undertakes (are) to carry out an expert assessment of the manuscript objectively. Personal criticism of the author (s) of the manuscript is unacceptable. The reviewer must give reasons for his comments and justify his decision to accept the manuscript or to reject it. Nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of the author (s) should not be taken into account and taken into account in the process of reviewing the manuscript by the reviewer (s).
Reviewer contributions to editorial decisions. The peer review provided by the reviewer (s) facilitates editorial decisions about publication, and also helps the author (s) improve the manuscript. The decision to accept the manuscript for publication, return the work to the author for modification or revision, or the decision to reject publication is made by the editorial board based on the results of the review.
The principle of timeliness of peer review. The reviewer is obliged to provide a review within the time period determined by the editors, but no later than two months from the date of receipt of the manuscript for review. If consideration of the article and preparation of a review within the prescribed timeframe is not possible, then the reviewer must immediately notify the scientific editor of this.
A reviewer who believes that his qualifications do not correspond or are insufficient to make a decision when reviewing the submitted manuscript must immediately inform the scientific editor about this and refuse to review the manuscript.
The principle of confidentiality on the part of the reviewer. The manuscript provided to the peer reviewer should be considered confidential material. The reviewer has the right to demonstrate it and / or discuss it with other persons only after receiving written permission from the scientific editor of the journal and / or the author (s).
The information and ideas of the scientific work obtained during the peer review and the support of the publication process should not be used by the reviewer (s) for personal gain.
The principle of confirmation of sources. The reviewer must indicate scientific papers that would have influenced the research results of the manuscript in question, but were not cited by the author (s). Also, the reviewer is obliged to draw the attention of the scientific editor to significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and a previously published work of which he is aware.
If the reviewer has sufficient grounds to believe that the manuscript contains plagiarism, incorrect borrowing, false and fabricated materials or research results, then he should not allow the manuscript to be published and inform the scientific editor of the journal about revealed violations of the principles, standards and norms of publication and scientific ethics ...
Conflict of interests
Conflicts of interest, as defined by the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE), are conflict situations in which authors, reviewers, or editorial board members have implicit interests that can influence their judgments regarding published material. A conflict of interest arises when there are financial, personal, or professional conditions that can affect the scientific judgment of the reviewer and editorial board members, and, as a result, the editorial board's decision regarding the publication of a manuscript. The executive editor of the journal should require all participants in the manuscript publication process to disclose a conflict of interest.
The academic editor, editorial board member, and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest that could somehow influence the editorial board's decision. Members of the editorial board should refuse to consider the manuscript if they are in any competitive relationship related to the research results of the author (s) of the manuscript, or if there is another conflict of interest.
When submitting a manuscript for consideration to the journal, the author (s) declares that the content of the manuscript indicates all sources of research funding; also indicate what commercial, financial, personal, or professional factors exist that could create a conflict of interest in relation to the submitted manuscript. The author (s), in the cover letter, if there is a conflict of interest, may indicate scientists who, in their opinion, will not be able to objectively evaluate their manuscript.
The reviewer should not consider manuscripts that may cause a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationship with any of the authors related to the manuscript.
In the event of a conflict of interest with the content of the manuscript, the executive editor must notify the scientific editor of this, after which the scientific editor delegates the verification and review of the manuscript to another editor / reviewer. The existence of a conflict of interest between the participants during the review and review process does not mean that the manuscript will be rejected. All interested parties should, as far as possible, avoid the emergence of a conflict of interest in any variation at all stages of publication. In the event of any conflict of interest, the person who discovered this conflict must immediately notify the editorial board of this. The same applies to any other violation of the principles, standards and norms of publication and scientific
Submission of Manuscripts
- Manuscripts should be submitted in MS-Word by email to fjams@FUOYE.edu.ng
- Once manuscript is received, an acknowledgement email stating the paper ID will be sent to corresponding author for further correspondence.
- Structure of Manuscript
- The cover page should be separated from the manuscript text and should contain the title of the manuscript, author(s) names and affiliation, contact addresses (e-mail and telephone numbers). The manuscript text should begin with abstract on a fresh page.
- Title of manuscript should be concise and informative. Authors are advised to avoid lengthy titles
- Abstract of not more than 250 words showing the motivation of the study, methods and conclusion is required. The abstract should be simple and concise without any technical econometric or statistical indices.
- Five (5) keywords, JEL, classifications and paper classification under any of the following (Research paper; view point; conceptual paper; case study; Literature review; general review; Doctrinal Dissertation) should be indicated after abstract.
- The length limit for each manuscript is 20 galley-proof pages including figures, tables and references. A maximum of 25 pages is permitted at extra cost for additional pages.
- Manuscript should be Times New Roman 12- point font size at 1.5 line spacing (except table with single space) with 1-inch or 2.54cm margin on all sides.
- Tables should be typed on separate pages. Number the illustrations according to the sequence of the appearance in the text where they are to be labeled as “Table1”, “Table2”, etc.
- Table titles should be short and self-explanatory. Each table must have an accompanying explanation and its source below it. Descriptions such as table below or above should be avoided.
- A brief title should be given above each table and any footnotes below.
- Manuscript should be written in English (either US or UK spelling is accepted, but not a mixture of both).
- Organization of the paper
- The manuscript should be divided into five (5) sections;
- Literature review and hypothesis development
- Data and Methods
- Data Analysis and Discussions of findings
- Conclusion and Recommendations
- All illustrations should be submitted in a form suitable for reproduction. Number the illustrations according to the sequence of their appearance in the text, where they are to be referred to as “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2”, etc. Each illustration may have a legend if required.
- Photographs should be glossy prints. The author’s name and figure number should be indicated on the back of each illustration.
- The following sequence of headings should be used: 1, 1.1 (then 1.2, 1.3), 1.1.1 (then 1.1.2, 1.1.3,…)
- Please refrain from using fourth level sections/headers.
- In the text, footnotes are not permitted. They should be properly included in the context.
- Use smaller font size for table footnotes
- Symbols and Abbreviations
- Please use widely accepted symbols and forms of abbreviation.
- If there is any doubt in your mind about a symbol or abbreviation given the full expression followed by the abbreviation, when it appears in the text for the first time.
- Mathematical expressions and equations should be properly typewritten, with all symbols aligned as they are to appear in print.
- All Greek letters and other special symbols must be identified.
- Vectors will be set in bold face and should be indicated in the manuscript by underlining with a way line
- Equations or formulae should be numbered serially on the right-hand side by Arabic numerals in parentheses.
- Include DOI of the references whenever available
- Please follow the style below:
References must follow the current edition of the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th referencing style typed with single line spacing within a reference.
- Peer Review Policy
FJAMS adheres strictly to an accelerated and thorough double- blind review policy in which the identity of the reviewer and authors is not revealed to each other.
All manuscripts are reviewed as soon as possible, and the editorial decision is reached within 3-4 weeks of submission. There is room for authors to opt for fast-track review of 2 weeks, but it attracts additional charges of 5,000 or USD 10 respectively.
Manuscripts that fall under fast-track option would be published, if accepted for publication within the specified period.
The reviewer recommendation determines whether an article will be
- Accepted subject to minor corrections;
- Accepted subject to resubmission with significant corrections; or
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.