Editorial policies and standards

Code of Conduct

Finbold adopts and strives to adhere to COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices, as well as NUJ’s (National Union of Journalists) code of conduct. 

Following the code, journalists at Finbold seek to:

• Uphold and defend the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression, and the public’s right to be informed;
• Assure that all published information is truthfully presented, factual and unbiased;
• Correct dangerous inaccuracies to their maximum ability;
• Distinguish between facts and opinions;
• Obtain information by open and straightforward means;
• Never intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or misery unless justified by overriding public interest concern;
• Protect the identity of sources who provide material in confidence;
• Oppose motivations to influence, distort or conceal information and not take unfair personal advantage of acquired material before its public knowledge;
• Avoid producing material that may lead to hatred or discrimination based on a person’s age, gender, race, color, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation;
• Not endorse any commercial service or product for the promotion of their own work by advertising;
• Avoid plagiarism.

Guidelines for editors and reviewers

Finbold recommends that our editors and reviewers be familiar with and follow COPE Core Practices and COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Guidelines for the editor

Editors at Finbold evaluate manuscripts without regard to race, gender, religious belief, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, or political ideology of the authors.

For appropriate reasons, the editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone except Finbold’s authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher.

Unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editors’ personal research without the author’s explicit written consent.

Role of the editor:

• Provide expertise in various fields of research;
• Judge and amend submitted drafts;
• Counsel on journal policy and partake in the journal development;
• Propose new topics and content;
• Promotion of the journal at conferences, workshops, seminars, and other applicable public events;
• Attract new potential authors.

Guidelines for the reviewer

During the peer-review process and after reviewing, Finbold expects from its reviewers the following:

• The reviewed manuscript should not be discussed with anyone without distinct permission from the editor;
• Material concerning the manuscript should not be copied, disseminated, or shared for any purpose;
• All clarifications from authors should be included in the comments section of the document;
• Objectivity: all the comments and recommendations should be supported with relevant arguments;
• An invitation to peer review should be responded to within a reasonable time frame;
• Reviews should be finalized by the deadline indicated in the invitation;
• Reviewers should remain unbiased in regard to the author’s age, gender, race, color, religion, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation;
• Reviewers should disclose any competing interests that may bias the review of the submitted manuscript.

Peer Review Process & Editorial Decision:

1. The author submits the manuscript;
2. Editor evaluation (some manuscripts are rejected or returned before the review process);
3. Double-blind peer review process;
4. Editor’s decision;
5. Confirmation to the authors.

Authorship principles

Finbold assumes that all authors agreed with the content and gave explicit consent to submit the work. Therefore, all authors whose names appear on the submission:

• Made substantial contributions to the vision or design of the work; or the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data;
• Drafted the work;
• Have approved for the final version to be published;
• Are accountable for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the material are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Authors’ ethical responsibilities

To maintain the integrity of the research and its presentation, Finbold applies the following guidelines to its authors:

• Authors should not submit work to more than one publication for concurrent consideration;
• The submitted manuscript should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in whole) unless it involves an expansion of previous work;
• Authors should be transparent about the re-use of material to avoid concerns about text-recycling (i.e. self-plagiarism);
• Authors should know how to use sources appropriately for obtaining, selecting, and processing information. No data, text, or theories by others should be introduced as the author’s own (i.e. plagiarism); 
• Appropriate acknowledgments to other works must be stated. Material that is near-verbatim copied, summarized, and paraphrased requires quotation marks to indicate words taken from another source and link to the web source;
• Research articles and non-research articles must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made;
• Disproportionate self-citation and systematic efforts among authors to collectively self-cite are strongly discouraged;
• Authors are asked to include information regarding sources of funding and financial or non-financial interests;
• Make sure disclosures, declarations, and transparency on data statements are included in the manuscript as appropriate;
• Untrue statements about an entity (person or a company) or illustrations of their behavior or actions that may be seen as biased attacks or allegations should be avoided;
• Research that may be misapplied to threaten national security or public health should be clearly identified in the manuscript;
• Authors should be prepared upon request to send relevant documentation or data to verify the validity of their presented results;
• Authors should correct mistakes once they discover a notable error or inaccuracy in their published article. 

Sources & attribution

Finbold is dedicated to the complete disclosure of its sources of information in its stories to achieve full transparency for its readers. We do this to our utmost capability so readers can verify our findings themselves.

Accurate and fair context

We seek to treat sources fairly, meaning putting statements we quote into context and summarizing the arguments of people we quote in recognizably fair and accurate ways. So, for example, potentially controversial statements by public figures and everyone else should be quoted in their entirety and context.

Attribution

We are truthful about the source of our information. Facts and quotations that were not produced by our reporting are always wholly attributed. Our policy is to give credit to other publications that develop exclusive stories worthy of coverage, and plagiarism is not permitted. 

Fact-checking methods

In our commitment to truth and accuracy, fact-checking is essential to maintaining the integrity of our reporting. This section outlines the fact-checking methods we adhere to, ensuring our journalism is reliable and trustworthy.

How do we check the facts

1. Verification of Sources

• Primary sources: We prioritize direct sources, such as official documents, personal social posts, company announcements, eyewitness accounts, and authoritative voices in the respective field.
• Multiple sources: We strive to cross-reference information with multiple independent sources to confirm its validity.
• Source credibility: Our team assesses the credibility of sources by considering their background, expertise, and potential biases.

2. Cross-Referencing Information

• Corroborate facts: We use trustworthy databases, archives, and records to corroborate information.
• Third-party validation: Whenever possible, we seek validation from independent and reputable third-party fact-checking organizations.

3. Transparency with Sources

• Cite sources: Our website identifies and attributes sources of information.
• Unnamed sources policy: We use anonymous sources sparingly and only when the information is essential and unobtainable otherwise. We explain the reason for anonymity to our audience.

4. Contextual Accuracy

• Context matters: We ensure that facts are presented within their proper context to avoid misinterpretation.
• Avoid selective use: Our authors avoid cherry-picking facts that might mislead or distort the true nature of events.

5. Use of Digital Tools

• Fact-checking tools: Our authors employ digital tools and platforms specifically designed for fact-checking, such as reverse image search to verify visual content.
• Data verification: We utilize official and recognized data sources to verify numerical data and figures.

6. Seeking Expert Opinions

• Consult experts: When covering complex or specialized topics, we consult with subject matter experts to verify technical details and gain deeper insight. We also use HARO (Help-A-Reporter tool) to receive insights from industry professionals.
• Peer review: We encourage peer reviews of critical pieces to catch potential inaccuracies before publication.

7. Correction Policy

• Prompt corrections: We address mistakes promptly by issuing corrections or retractions when necessary, and we do so with transparency about the nature of the error.
• Public acknowledgment: We acknowledge and correct errors publicly to maintain trust with our audience.

8. Continuous Training

• Staff training: Our team receives regular training on the latest fact-checking techniques and tools.
• Awareness of bias: We educate our staff about cognitive biases and how they can affect fact-checking processes.

Conflict of interest

WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) provides a helpful definition of conflict of interest: 

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests.”

Authors should disclose any financial and applicable interests that may have influenced their reporting/writing. In addition, reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and, if necessary, decline the review of any product/service that presents a potential conflict of interest. Such reviews will be re-assigned to appropriate reviewers. The same applies to editors.  

Post-publication corrections

Rarely, if needed, or new essential information on the topic is retrieved, we correct, revise, or retract articles after publication. In addition, we allow post-publication interactions and invite our readers to healthy debate through emails to the editor. 

Our commitment to accuracy

Finbold has been reporting on the course and performance of various financial sectors daily since 2019. Our audience relies on us to get verified, factual news on stocks, cryptocurrencies, and banking, as well as guides and reviews on the world of finance and e-commerce.

Our commitment to accuracy demands rigorous adherence to all of our fact-checking methods, ensuring that each piece of journalism we produce is accurate, fair, and credible. By integrating these practices, we uphold the trust of our audience and contribute to a well-informed society.

To know more – read about us or drop us a letter.

Our policies:
Privacy policy
Terms & Conditions of Use
Disclaimer