Publication Ethics

The editors of the Educational Policy and Management Review issue a set of publication ethics as guidelines for authors engaged in the publication of scientific research to comply with COPE Core Practices and establish a high-quality standard of ethics for journal publication.

Allegations of Misconduct

The purpose of this policy is to prevent any misconduct related to research conducted for the journals and to suggest the fundamental principles and structural procedures concerning research integrity deliberation required to ensure research ethics. 

The range of misconduct policy

Research misconduct suggested in this policy pertains to fraud and refers to data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and improper authorship. 

  1. "Fabrication" refers to any activity involving the creation of false information about non-existing data or findings.
  2. "Falsification" refers to the artificial manipulation of the research materials/equipment/process or random modification/deletion of data resulting in distorted research contents or research results.
  3. "Plagiarism" refers to acts of pirating others’ ideas, research contents, and research results without justifiable approvals or quotations.
  4. "Improper authorship" refers to cases where the person who has contributed to research contents or research results is scientifically and technically unqualified as an author or where someone who has not contributed to the research contents or research results scientifically and technically but has been listed as an author merely to express gratitude or courtesy
  5. Intentional acts to disturb a fraud investigation about themselves or others or acts which can be harmful to informants
  6. Unfair evaluation regarding research of others or disclosure or pirating of research ideas or research results acquired during the evaluation process.
  7. Severely aberrant acts that cannot be accepted in the community of the field of science and technology.

How does the journal address misconduct?

Editors and publishers have an ethical obligation to:

  1. Support the quality and ethics of the review process (pre-publication: weed out; prevent)
  2. Ensure the correctness of the published literature (post-publication: correct; communicate)
  3. Educate (prevent)

Editors/journals have an ethical obligation to respond and to address ethical allegations that may arise about published papers or papers in review. Systems and procedures are in place for investigating and addressing situations of misconduct, including cooperation with investigations from institutions or funding bodies.

Possible sanction

When the evidence of misconduct is confirmed, the following procedures are to be applied:

  1. Before publication (during review): The manuscript can be withdrawn from review
  2. Post-publication (literature correction) The journal may publish a Retraction, Note of Editorial Concern, Errata/Correction with the author or all authors’ signatures, or editorial of an appropriate statement about the situation. The paper can be “marked” in the literature
  3. Editors determine whether to retract or correct after considering whether the case is fraud or an honest mistake. They consider the intent and then the extent to which the data is incorrect/misleading
  4. The author may be banned from submitting to the journal.
  5. Editors may, in some cases, provide information for other editors/publishers.
  6. Editors may publish an editorial in the journal to discuss the issue generally and raise awareness of the issue.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authors are expected to comply with the following ethical guidelines. Any infringement may lead to a retraction of the article or even ban the author from journal publication.

  1. The author’s main obligation is to deliver accurate and complete details of the research performed. The research data should contain sufficient information on the related subject.
  2. Authors should ensure the originality of their work and that neither fraud nor fabrication is involved in their manuscript.
  3. Authors should guarantee that the article has not been published previously or is not being evaluated for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors should ensure that their works do not contain any unlawful statements and/or any comments that may violate the law.
  5. Authors are aware of and abide by the misconduct policy.

Authors listed in an article must meet all of the following criteria.

  1. Made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that’s in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation, or all these areas.
  2. Have drafted written, substantially revised, or critically reviewed the article.
  3. Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.
  4. Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.
  5. Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

Editorship

  1. Editors should provide a fair judgment and consideration to all manuscripts based on their quality with no regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
  2. Editors are responsible for considering all the submitted manuscripts in a reasonable time frame.
  3. Editors, with their expertise and fair judgment, are responsible for accepting or rejecting the manuscripts. They are to build good communication with authors regarding the manuscript’s publication. The final decision will be accompanied by the reviewer’s comment
  4. Editors shall make sure no private information of authors is included in the manuscript sent to reviewers
  5. Editors should ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and not disclose any information about the manuscript under consideration to other parties
  6. Editors are to respect the author’s request to not use certain reviewers – with a well-reasoned objection - to consider their manuscript. However, editors can decide to use one or more of these reviewers if their professional input is considered to be important for the manuscript’s publication
  7. Editors are to comply with COPE practices when considering a manuscript for publication.

Complaints and Appeals

The below procedure applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers, and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in the first instance be handled by the Editor in Chief responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper. If they are the subject of the complaint please approach the publisher contact.  

Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection
The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports, and decides whether (1) The decision to reject should stand (2) Another independent opinion is required, and (3) The appeal should be considered.

The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.

Complaints about processes, e.g. time taken to review 

The Editor in Chief together with the Handling Editor (where appropriate) and/or publisher contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaints about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's, author's, or reviewer's conduct

The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor may ask the publisher for advice on complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics. 

Conflict of Interest Policy

Authors, Editors, and Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines in compliance with COPE practices.

  1. Authors should inform their source of financial support -institution, private, and/or corporate- for their research
  2. In case the author and editor of the Educational Policy and Management Review have a relationship that may lead to an unfair evaluation, another editor will be appointed instead.
  3. Reviewers should be aware of any appearance of conflict of interest when receiving a manuscript for evaluation and are required to promptly return the manuscript to the editor, informing the conflict of interest issue.

Data and Reproducibility

Data availability and reporting guidelines are available in the Author Guidelines section.

Ethical Oversight

All submitted articles and exchanging information involving authors and editors in the Educational Policy and Management Review will be considered confidential. Communications related to the publication process should not be disclosed on any website without prior consent from the editors.

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.

All research studies on humans (individuals, samples, or data) must have been performed following the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. 

Before starting the study, ethical approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the local institutional review board (IRB) or other appropriate ethics committee to confirm the study meets national and international guidelines for research on humans. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript, which must provide details of the name of the ethics committee and reference/permit numbers where available.

For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys), where ethical approval is not required (e.g. because of national laws), or where a study has been granted an exemption by an ethics committee, this should be stated within the manuscript with a full explanation. Where a study has been granted exemption, the name of the ethics committee, that provided this, should also be included. However, if the researcher is in doubt, they should always seek advice from the relevant department before conducting the study.

Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language should be used when describing different groups by race, ethnicity, age, disease, disability, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Human studies categorized by such groupings should include an explanation of the definitions and categories, including whether any rules of human categorization were required by the relevant funding agencies.

Ethical approval for all studies must be obtained before the research is conducted. Authors must be prepared to provide further information to the journal editorial office upon request.

Intellectual Properties

Disclaimer

The viewpoints of articles published in the Educational Policy and Management Review are solely the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board of the publisher.

Copyright

The author is responsible for acquiring permission(s) to reproduce any copyrighted figures, tables, data, or text that are being used in the submitted paper. Authors should note that text quotations of more than 250 words from a published or copyrighted work will require a grant of permission from the original publisher to reprint. The written permission letter(s) must be submitted together with the manuscript.

Publishing

This journal uses Open Journal System which is a journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and distributed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP).

Journal Management

This Journal is available online and can be accessed for free.

Publication in this journal is through the Free of Charge scheme and all published papers are available online through open access.

Peer Review Process

All papers will be critically examined by anonymous reviewers, selected for their competencies in the subject area of the paper. Acceptance of the paper will depend upon its scientific merit and suitability for the Educational Policy and Management Review. A paper may be accepted in its original form, subject to revision, or rejection.

The reviewers' (and editors’) suggestions will be conveyed to the author, who will then have an opportunity to revise the paper. Please see detailed information about our Peer Review Process.

Post Publication - Discussion and Correction

The Educational Policy and Management Review follows the guidance from COPE regarding ethical concerns for published articles. Complaints and Appeal Editor in Chief email at editorial.epmr@gmail.com are available for contact should the authors have an objection or disagreement with the publication process in the Educational Policy and Management Review. Every complaint will be acknowledged and handled to resolve the issue accordingly. In addition, articles may be retracted due to both scientific and/or ethical reasons, which can be requested by the author(s) or by the Editor. Articles that are found to be seriously flawed or violated ethical guidance from COPE will be retracted to correct the scientific record. The retracted article will be noticed on the journal's website alongside information regarding the reason for the retraction.