Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
At the Journal of Education and e-Learning Research (e-ISSN: 2410-9991/p-ISSN: 2518-0169), the integrity of our academic content and publishing process is paramount. This document outlines the best practices and values that we apply to our journals. We hope that these guidelines will be useful to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of the Journal of Education and e-Learning Research.
The Journal of Education and e-Learning Research (JEELR) follows the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a global not-for-profit organization which aims to support publishers and editors to achieve high standards in publishing ethics, although COPE primarily provides guidelines and resources for journal editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011 and 2018).
Committee on Publication Ethics (2011, March). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from
Committee on Publication Ethics (January 2018). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from
We also follow standards and best practice guidelines set by other relevant industry associations, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Any external guidelines we follow are referred to in the relevant sections below.
We maintain the highest standards in research publication. These principles cover:
- honesty in all aspects of research,
- scrupulous care, thoroughness, and excellence in research practice,
- transparency and open communication,
- care and respect for all participants in, and subjects of, research.
In addition to the principles above, we expect the Journal of Education and e-Learning Research editorial teams to provide specific guidelines and policies for authors regarding research integrity and ethics that are appropriate to their subject matter and discipline.
Anyone who may be concerned that research published by the Journal of Education and e-Learning Research has not been carried out in line with these Research Publishing Ethics Guidelines, or the above principles, should raise their concerns with the relevant editor or email firstname.lastname@example.org. Concerns will be addressed by following COPE guidelines where possible and by raising the matter with our Publishing Ethics Committee if necessary.
- Publication decisions: Editors have complete responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article. However, this decision should only be based on the paper’s relevance to the journal’s scope and its academic quality, including the reviewers’ judgments, the innovation of the research, and the validity of the experiments. Articles will be accepted once these requirements have been met satisfactorily.
- Confidentiality: Editors and the editorial staff should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted papers, which should only be disclosed to the authors, the reviewers, the potential reviewers, the adviser from the JEELR editorial committee, and the publisher, if necessary, before publication. The submitted papers should not be used for the editors’ and the editorial staff’s own research without the authors’ written authorization.
- Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to the articles they accept or reject.
- A double-blind review must be adhered to during the peer review process.
- The anonymity of reviewers should be preserved.
- When errors are found, the corrected article should be published, or retracted.
Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. We expect the following from reviewers:
- Judgments should be objective.
- Reviewers’ views should be expressed clearly with supporting arguments.
- Promptness is required. If the selected reviewer feels unable to review the paper thoroughly, or cannot promptly review the paper, the reviewer should inform the editor and withdraw from the peer review process of the paper.
- Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors, and/or the research funders.
- Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not been cited.
- Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.
Authorship and Contributorship
We acknowledge that different disciplines and publication formats have different norms for who is listed as an author. Where no other guidance is specified, we recommend applying the following principles:
- List anyone who has made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
- Draft the work or revise it critically for important intellectual content.
- Seek final approval of the version to be published.
- Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work and ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
We consider the corresponding author to be the person who handles the manuscript and correspondence during the publication process. We ask that the corresponding author confirms that they have the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors in all matters pertaining to publication of the manuscript, including supplementary material. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining such agreements and for informing the co-authors of the manuscript’s status throughout the submission, review, and publication process. In addition, the corresponding author should also act as the main point of contact for any enquiries (including those relating to the integrity of the work) after the paper has been published.
We encourage authors to list anyone who does not meet the criteria for authorship in an Acknowledgments section in their publication, for example, to recognize the contributions of anyone who provided research or writing assistance.
COPE also provides extensive resources on authorship and authorship disputes, and we encourage anyone involved in editorial decisions to familiarize themselves with these resources. We support our editors in dealing with any authorship disputes, including escalating or seeking advice on cases with COPE. We work with established and emerging industry standards to increase transparency in authorship (e.g., ORCID). We also support initiatives that enable transparency in authorship and contributorship, such as CRediT taxonomy.
The similarity/plagiarism rate is carried out using CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate. Plagiarism is defined as ‘using someone else’s ideas, words, data, or other material produced by them without acknowledgement’.
Plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and media, including:
- text, illustrations, musical quotations, extended mathematical derivations, computer code, etc.,
- material downloaded from websites or drawn from manuscripts or other media,
- published and unpublished material, including lectures, presentations, and grey literature.
We do not tolerate plagiarism in any of our publications, and we reserve the right to check all submissions through appropriate plagiarism checking tools. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or in part, will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered post publication, we will retract the article. We expect our readers, reviewers, and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism, either by contacting the relevant editor or by emailing email@example.com.
Duplicate and Redundant Publication
Duplicate or redundant publication, or ‘self-plagiarism’, occurs when a work, or substantial parts of a work, is published more than once by the author(s) of the work without appropriate cross-referencing or justification for the overlap. This can be in the same language or a different language.
We do not support substantial overlap between publications, unless:
- it is felt that, editorially, this will strengthen the academic discourse,
- we have clear approval from the original publication,
- citation of the original source is included.
We expect our readers, reviewers, and editors to raise any suspicions of duplicate or redundant publication, either by contacting the relevant editor or by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.
When authors submit manuscripts to our journal, these manuscripts should not be under consideration, accepted for publication, or in press within a different journal, book, or similar entity.
Conflicts of Interest and Funding
We try to ensure that any Journal of Education and e-Learning Research publication is free from undue influence. Authors submitting a manuscript to the Journal of Education and e-Learning Research are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication. Conflicts of interest are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on the presentation, review, or publication of a piece of work. These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature. We also expect that anyone who suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding a work published or under consideration by the Journal of Education and e-Learning Research should inform the relevant editor or email email@example.com.
Libel, Defamation, and Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is critical to us as academic publishers, but we do not support the publication of false statements that harm the reputation of individuals, groups, or organizations. Our legal team can advise on pre-publication libel reviews and will also address allegations of libel in any of our publications.
Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern
Journal editors will consider retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, they will issue an erratum. Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon. Journals that publish accepted manuscripts may make minor changes, such as those which would likely occur during typesetting or proofreading, but any substantive corrections will be carried out in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.
COPE (2019) COPE Retraction guidelines — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 Version 2: November 2019.
Image Manipulation, Falsification, and Fabrication
Where research data are collected or presented as images, modifying these images can sometimes misrepresent the results obtained or their significance. We recognize that there can be legitimate reasons for modifying images, but we expect authors to avoid modifying images where this leads to the falsification, fabrication, or misrepresentation of their results.
Fraudulent Research and Research Misconduct
Where we are made aware of fraudulent research or research misconduct by anJournal of Education and e-Learning Research author, our first concern is the integrity of the content we have published. We will work with the relevant editor(s), COPE, and other appropriate institutions or organizations to investigate the situation. Any publication found to include fraudulent results will be retracted, or an appropriate correction or expression of concern will be issued.
We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Data and Supporting Evidence
We support transparency and openness around data, code, and other materials associated with research. We expect authors to maintain accurate records of supporting evidence necessary to allow others to understand, verify, and replicate new findings, and to supply or provide access to this supporting evidence on reasonable request. Where appropriate, and where allowed by an employer, funding body, or others who may have an interest, we encourage authors to:
- deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location for sharing and further use by others,
- describe where the data may be found in a Data Availability Statement, which authors should include in their publication.
Integrity of Record
We maintain a record of the existence of everything we publish with information (metadata) describing each publication. If our content is deemed not to comply with the laws of a sovereign nation, we make every effort to ensure the metadata remain accessible within that jurisdiction. Where we are obliged to alter the publication record in any way, such as in the case of research misconduct leading to the retraction of a publication, we preserve the academic record as far possible. See the Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern guidelines for information about how we do this.
Social media and email communication are powerful tools for disseminating and engaging with our publications, for reaching new readers, and for keeping content alive. However, such onward communication should never be at the expense of the integrity of the content or the academic record. All colleagues with responsibility for our social media channels are expected to familiarize themselves with the relevant Journal of Education and e-Learning Research social media policies and best practice in media use, and to follow the Advertising Standards Authority’s guidance on the marketing of publications (or equivalent bodies applicable to our global offices). Colleagues are also expected to apply these policies and this guidance when using external influencers during a social media campaign.
We allow limited, appropriate, and sometimes targeted advertising on our online academic platforms and within some of our print publications. Where present, advertising must:
- be independent from editorial decisions on what we publish,
- be clearly distinct from content.
We reserve the right to reject or remove any advertising if we have concerns that it contravenes these Research Publishing Ethics Guidelines or our Code of Ethics. We also advertise our products and services to customers. We do so in accordance with our data protection regulations, the Advertising Standards Authority’s guidance on the marketing of publications, and our internal compliance procedures.
PR / Media
We recommend that academic colleagues who are involved in media or publicity familiarize themselves with and follow the International Public Relations Association’s (IPRA) Code of Conduct, and observe these standards in any press releases or other media communications. Where we solicit or encourage media activities concerning one of our authors, editors, or publishing partners, we strive to keep them informed.
Metrics, Usage, and Reporting
We partner with a number of third parties, including commercial services, to provide our users with metrics to illustrate the impact and reception of our content. We support the work of third parties, such as Crossref, and in some cases actively facilitate the work of such organizations (through the provision of data, access, or fees). We do not seek to control or influence any third party and we are not responsible for the metrics and rankings they produce.
The Journal of Education and e-Learning Research is also a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). We are committed to promoting best practice in the assessment and impact reporting of scholarly research.