JFMD Authors Guideline

The JFMD welcomes the submission of various types of original manuscripts. These manuscripts include original research articles (based on quantitative and qualitative data research outputs), review articles (narratives, literature reviews, scoping reviews, book reviews), systematic review articles, meta-analysis articles, and business case studies/reports/series.

Specific guideline to prepare research articles:

The research article shall contain the following in the order given.

Title page

  • The ‘Title of the Article’ must be written in full.
  • The full names, institutional addresses, and e-mail addresses of all authors must be included on the title page. The corresponding author should be clearly indicated.

Abstract

The abstract of research article should not exceed 300 words and must report:

  • The aim of the study. Beginning with the big picture is much preferable
  • Basic information on the population and sample (sample size when using primary data, but time span and countries analyzed when using time series and panel data)
  • Description of the empirical methodology being employed-include statistical tests performed if necessary
  • The main findings of the research
  • Wind up with conclusions, policy implications, and recommendations (if any) of the research’s findings

Include 3-5 keywords at the end. The abstract should be written in Times New Roman and Italic with font size 11. Moreover,

  • Authors should not include any citation within the abstract
  • Acronyms and abbreviations should be included only if used more than once after being mentioned fully when used for the first time

A research article should have the following five sections:

Introduction (Why did you start?): 

It traces the way the problem is being investigated. It clearly justifies the ground and purpose of the investigation. The flow should be from general to particular. Specifically, the Introduction section should highlight the relevance of the topic under investigation, population, companies, or policy-level problem based on the scope of the study, the data used and sample choice, the appropriateness of methodology employed, the novelty of the results, the contribution to the study to literature and policy implications, the limitations of the study, and the structure of the paper. It should also address the following question: Why this study is necessary? What policy-level problem this study is addressing? How the study is expected to provide any solution to that problem? How does the choice of sample is complementing that problem? Are the results and policies generalizable?

Related literature review

The literature review must include only those related to the manuscript under preparation. It is preferable to organize the literature review briefly under theoretical and empirical literature. The review of literature should also demonstrate the debate and thoughtful contradictions and identify research gaps. The authors are also free to show the Conceptual Framework of the study under this section.   Since, knowledge is dynamic, authors are recommended to rely on recent literature. However, authors are free to include old literature, if the literature is basic to the study under consideration. 

Materials and Methods or Methodology (what did you do?): 

It indicates how the investigation was conducted; what procedures and statistical tests were followed. This should include a brief description of the study area, the study design, the study population and samples (sample size and sampling procedures for primary data and time span as well as countries selected when using time series and panel data), the data collection procedures, validity and reliability tests (if necessary), methods of analysis, model specification, and ethical considerations (for researches using primary data). In model specification, authors are expected to show clearly how they have derived the empirical model. There should be a thorough theoretical underpinning behind the model. This section will be followed by the empirical model.

Results/Findings and discussion

The results (what did you find?) reports the findings and analyses of the investigation. The results or findings as per the nature of the study design (descriptive, explanatory, or exploratory) should be explained clearly. The descriptive statistics, correlation matrix, regression results, and diagnostic tests should be reported in tables and discussed thoroughly comparing the results with the existing literature and highlighting the financial, managerial, or economic intuitions behind the results.

The discussion (what does it mean?) summarizes, interprets, and discusses the implications of the findings or investigation results. When discussing results, authors should address questions such as: Are these results supporting or refuting the existing theories/policies in the chosen context? Are the results directed toward any new theory/policy initiatives or give something new on the theory/policy front?

All figures and tables should also be reported in the body of the manuscript and should be referred in text in discussion and must not be used from other sources for copyright reasons. The author is responsible for understanding and following the principles that govern the fair use of quotations and illustrations and for obtaining written permission to publish, wherever necessary. Accuracy in citations and references is also the author’s responsibility. 

Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the results/findings of the study, a conclusion should be drawn, which can prove or disapprove the study undertaken on scientific or rational grounds. Based on the findings of the study, specific policy implications or recommendations (if any) should be forwarded. The authors should keep in mind that the policy implications or recommendations should be directly derived from the discussion of the results, and they should not go beyond the results.

References: 

All in text citations must be acknowledged in the reference section. The referencing should follow the APA Style of citation to be used both in the main body of document followed by automatic generation of Reference after inserting into the types of source like a book, book section, journal article, article in a periodical, conference proceedings, report, website, document from the website, electronic sources, art, sound recording, performance, film, interview, patent, case, miscellaneous. Accuracy in citations and references is the author’s responsibility. 

APA in-text citation style uses the author's last name and the year of publication, for example: (Alam, 2011). For direct quotations, include the page number as well, for example: (Alam, 2011, p. 6).

Example for APA Style Reference

BOOK

Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail. New York: Crown Business.

Book with Edition Specification

Greene, W.H.  (2003). Econometric Analysis (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall, N.J.

Editorial Book

Asrat, A. (2016). The Ethiopian highland massifs: Spectacular volcanic landscapes with high biodiversity. In Anhaeusser C. R., Viljoen M. J., Viljoen R. (eds.). Africa’s Top Geological Sites. Cape Town: Struik Nature, pp. 189-196.

Research Working Paper

Blonigen B.A., (2005). A review of the empirical literature on FDI determinants. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 11299, Cambridge, MA

Samad Abdul and Masih Mansur (2021).Does institutional quality matter in attracting foreign direct investment? The case of Ethiopia based on ARDL approach. MPRA Working Paper No. 108493. Available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/108493/

JOURNAL

Barkhordari, M., Salatin, P., Afshar, S., and Abedinzadeh, S. (2017). The effect of regulatory quality on foreign direct investment absorption in selected countries group. International Journal of Development Research, 7(9), 15057–15064.

ONLINE SOURCES

Online scholarly opinion/belief/impression/analysis etc.

Karimi, M.S., and Yusop, Z. (2009). FDI and Economic Growth in Malaysia. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1499 9/1/fdi_on_economic_growth.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2024).

Online Journal with Identifier (DOI, DOAJ, INDEX, ISSN, etc.)

Kasasbeh, H. A., Mdanat, M. F., and Khasawneh, R. (2018). Corruption and FDI inflows: Evidence from a small developing economy. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 8(8), 1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.18488/ journal.aefr.2018.88.1075.1085.

Azam Muhammad and Ahmad Siti Aznor (2013). The Effects of Corruption on Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: Some Empirical Evidence from Less Developed Countries, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9(6): 3462-3467, ISSN 1819-544X.

Online Newspapers

El-Said, M. (July 13, 2020). AU-sponsored Nile dam talks end fruitless: Concerned parties to present separate final reports on GERD negotiations to AU chair on Tuesday. Daily News Egypt. Retrieved on 26/12/2020 from https://dailynewsegypt.com/author/m-said/.

Unpublished Thesis/Dissertation

Lajeunesse Maxwell (2022). Investing in Democratic Countries: An Investigation of Democracy and FDI.  Unpublished Honor Thesis, Bryant University, Smithfield. Rhode Island, USA.

Captions for Illustrations, figures, graphs, and tables

Each caption should include a one-sentence title that summarizes the content of the illustrations, figures, graphs, and tables. Captions should summarize the data such that a reader can comprehend without having to refer to the text.

Use of Italics

The following must be italicized in the Manuscript besides the APA Style:

   Ibid.

          via

  et al

        i.e.

  etc.

       inter alia

  per se

      viz.

   vs.

de jure and de facto

 

Expression of Views and Their Responsibility

The views expressed in the articles/reviews/reports published in JFMD are those of respective author (s). The Editorial Board of JFMD shall in no way be responsible for them.  

Submission and Peer review Process

Peer review is an essential part of the research process. Fundamentally, we want the review process to be a collaborative one between authors and reviewers, with the intention of ensuring the publication of rigorous research. Typically, after receiving a manuscript, the journal managing editor screens it for completeness and perform plagiarism test. Then, the managing editor presents summary of manuscripts submitted to editorial board members and decides whether or not to send it to reviewers for full peer review. Manuscripts that appear to be academically valid upon initial screening or assessment on the scope and completeness will be sent for formal review to two reviewers. When reviewers or referees agree to review a manuscript, we consider this as a commitment to review subsequent revisions as well. The journal uses double-blind review, which means that the authors’ identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.

Reviewers are asked to recommend a particular course of action (i.e., acceptance, revisions, or rejection) on the manuscript they reviewed. We take reviewers' comments very seriously, and in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editorial board with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often also helpful.  After considering the reviewer reports and recommendation, the Editorial board will make one of the following three decisions in a week:

  • Accept outright;
  • Revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns and perhaps undertake additional work and resubmit;
  • Reject outright.

The Editorial board will communicate the above decision to the corresponding authors at the end of the review process within a week. However, comments of reviewers will be communicated only to authors whose manuscript is recommended for revision and requested for resubmission within three weeks. Editors will then send resubmitted manuscripts to the reviewer (s) for final review and recommendation within two weeks. The question to ask when reviewing the revised version of the manuscript is “Have the authors addressed all comments from the previous round review?” If reviewers are convinced that the authors have addressed their comments, they can recommend “Accept” for publication or reject for failure to address their comments.

Nevertheless, we may communicate other reviewers in cases where the two reviewers recommendation disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact and make formal complaint. In cases where one reviewer or referee opposes publication and the other reviewer recommends for publication, we may bring in or involve a new referee to resolve disputes or to provide additional perspectives. When receiving complaints from authors stating that they have been misunderstood on points of fact, their manuscript will be sent to other two referees in order to provide a fair hearing for the authors.

Finally, authors of a manuscript accepted for publication outright and after revision should sign copyright transfer agreement and scheduled for publication in the journal. The following diagram shows the manuscript review and publication decision process for JFMD.

 

Figure 1. The Review and publication Process

Special issues and article collections

JFMD can publish special issues, which are spearheaded by our university Research and Partnership office and college academic commission. JFMD’s advisory board can also advise on scope and identify exciting topics and authors that can contribute to the special issue. The peer review of manuscripts submitted for special issues is managed identically to that of every other manuscript submitted to the journal.

Ethical policies and Publication Integrity

JFMD maintains a zero-tolerance policy concerning plagiarism. To avoid plagiarism, all papers will go through the software of detecting plagiarism. When the plagiarism score is 20 and above, it means that there is serious plagiarism or similarity of published works, data falsification, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, and hence the editor communicate the corresponding author for possible amendment of the manuscript and resubmission within two weeks. However, AI generated manuscripts with similarity level of 50% and above will be rejected automatically. When authors find substantive error in their published article, they can report both to the editor-in-chief and managing editor with convincing evidence to post the correction in the next issue of JFMD.