Ethics in publishing

EduRE is committed to maintaining a high level of integrity in the content it publishes. The platform follows a Conflict of Interest policy and abides by the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to address any instances of misconduct.

Ethics for Author

To ensure the quality and originality of the content, all submissions undergo a thorough Double Blind peer-review process. Additionally, plagiarism screening software is used to detect any potential instances of plagiarism. If plagiarism is identified, EduRE will strictly adhere to COPE's guidelines for addressing plagiarism.

Authors who publish with EduRE have the responsibility to maintain high ethical standards and uphold the integrity of the scientific record. This includes following the guidelines established by COPE to address any potential acts of misconduct.

To maintain trust in EduRE and the scientific community as a whole, authors must avoid misrepresenting research results. It is important to maintain the integrity of the research and its presentation by adhering to the principles of good scientific practice. These principles include:

The responsibilities of authors when publishing with EduRE include:

• Manuscripts should only be submitted to one journal at a time and should not be simultaneously submitted to multiple journals.
• The submitted work must be original and should not have been previously published in any form or language, unless it involves expanding upon prior work. Authors are encouraged to transparently disclose any reused material to avoid concerns about text recycling.
• To prevent inflating submission quantities, a single study should not be divided into multiple parts and submitted to different journals or to the same journal multiple times.
• Concurrent or secondary publication may be acceptable under specific conditions, such as translations or manuscripts intended for different reader groups.
• Authors must present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data, including image-based manipulation. It is crucial to adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting, and processing data.

Plagiarism, which involves presenting others' data, text, or theories as one's own, is strictly prohibited. Authors are required to provide proper acknowledgments for other works, including closely copied, summarized, or paraphrased material. Verbatim copying should be indicated using quotation marks, and permissions must be obtained for copyrighted material.

It is not permissible to use information acquired through confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, without explicit written permission from the relevant author.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/surveys, and scales in their studies, if applicable.

Both research and non-research articles should appropriately cite relevant literature to support the claims made. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation, as well as coordinated efforts among authors to collectively self-cite, are strongly discouraged.

Authors should avoid making untrue statements about an entity or providing descriptions of their behavior or actions that could be interpreted as personal attacks or unfounded allegations.

If the research has the potential to be misapplied and pose a threat to public health or national security, it should be clearly identified in the manuscript (e.g., dual use of research).

Authors are strongly advised to ensure accuracy in the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors at the time of submission. Adding or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but exceptions may be considered with valid reasons. Any changes in authorship should be thoroughly explained. Please note that alterations to authorship cannot be made after manuscript acceptance.

Authors should only use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process to improve the readability and language of their work. It is important to have human oversight and control when using such technology. Authors should carefully review and edit the output, as AI may generate content that sounds authoritative but can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Ultimately, authors are responsible for the content of their work.

Authors are required to disclose the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their manuscript, and a statement acknowledging their use will be included in the published work. Transparently declaring the use of these technologies builds trust among authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors, and ensures compliance with the terms of use for the relevant tools or technologies.

Authors should be prepared to provide relevant documentation or data upon request to support the validity of the presented results. This may include raw data, samples, records, etc. However, confidential or proprietary data that is sensitive in nature is exempt from this requirement.

In the event of suspected misconduct or alleged fraud, EduRE will follow the guidelines set by COPE and initiate an investigation. If valid concerns are found, the author(s) involved will be contacted via their provided email address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, EduRE may take the following actions:

• If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
• If the article has already been published online, the response will depend on the nature and severity of the violation:

            - An erratum/correction may be issued alongside the article.

            - An expression of concern may be added to the article.

            - In serious cases, the article may be retracted.

The rationale for any corrective action, such as an erratum/correction, expression of concern, or retraction, will be clearly explained in the published note. In the case of retraction, the article will remain on the platform but will be marked with a visible watermark indicating "retracted." A detailed explanation for the retraction will be provided in a note that is linked to the watermarked article. Additionally:

• The author's institution may be informed about the situation.
• A notice regarding the suspected violation of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included in the author's and article's bibliographic record. This measure aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the scholarly publishing process.

Fundamental errors

In the case of fundamental errors, it is the responsibility of authors to rectify significant mistakes or inaccuracies found in their published articles. Authors are encouraged to promptly contact the journal, providing detailed information on how the identified error is affecting the article. Based on the nature of the mistake, the decision on how to address it in the literature will be made, which may involve either a correction or retraction.

If a retraction is deemed necessary, the retraction note will be prepared with transparency in mind. It will clearly specify which parts of the article are affected by the identified error. This commitment to transparency ensures that readers and the scholarly community are well-informed about the nature and extent of the correction or retraction.

Suggesting / excluding reviewers

Authors are encouraged to suggest suitable reviewers and express preferences for excluding certain individuals when submitting their manuscripts. However, it is imperative that when suggesting reviewers, authors ensure the complete independence of the suggested individuals from the work in question. It is strongly recommended to propose a diverse panel of reviewers, encompassing individuals from different countries and institutions.

When suggesting reviewers, the Corresponding Author should provide an institutional email address for each recommended reviewer. If this is not feasible, alternative means of verifying identity, such as a link to a personal homepage, a publication record link, or a researcher/author ID, should be included in the submission letter. It's important to note that the journal may not always utilize the suggestions provided, but the input is valued and can potentially facilitate the peer review process.

Ethics for Reviewer

Reviewers should adhere to proper reviewing etiquette and treat writers and their work with the same respect and fairness that they would like for themselves. It is crucial to notify the editor as soon as possible and reject to participate in the review process if a referee is chosen and feels unfit to examine the research provided in a submission or if they anticipate being unable to complete the review in a timely manner.

Reviewers should also be on the lookout for any ethical issues that might be present in the work. Reviewers should notify the editor if they see any significant overlap or similarity between the manuscript under review and another published article that they are acquainted with. The appropriate citation must always be included when acknowledging that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously published. The integrity and dependability of the peer review process are guaranteed by this dedication to ethical review procedures.

The following rules should be followed by reviewers:

• Preserve confidentiality: It is imperative that reviewers protect the privacy of the review procedure.
• Avoid direct contact: Unless specifically authorized by the journal, do not get in touch with authors personally.
• Declare competing interests: Immediately notify the journal editor of any real or possible conflicts of interest that might affect the review's objectivity. If there is a conflict of interest, reviewers ought to reject to review.
• Conduct fair and impartial reviews: It is the responsibility of reviewers to conduct their assessments in a fair and impartial manner. Reviewers are encouraged to aim for fairness while acknowledging that academics may have strong ties to certain topics or specific affiliations. Reviewers should seek advice from the journal editor in a transparent manner if they are unsure whether a conflict exists.

EduRE is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of the content that it releases. It is recommended that authors, editors, and reviewers refer to the COPE’s Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Your duties as a reviewer consist of the following:

• Conflict of interest consideration: Before accepting the review, carefully consider if you have any potential conflicts of interest pertaining to the work. This includes refraining from reviewing manuscripts written by people you have previously worked, taught, or collaborated with. If you anticipate a conflict of interest, please notify the EduRE's editors of it discreetly and as soon as possible.
• Confidentiality of ethical concerns: Maintain the confidentiality of any information pertaining to any ethical issues with a manuscript. Any issues should be brought up with the editors so they can properly handle them as they know more about the publication.
• Peer review confidentiality: The process of peer review is private. Avoid using unpublished material for personal gain or giving out the contents of manuscripts to third parties without first obtaining EduRE's consent.
• Avoid direct contact with authors: Unless authorized by EduRE, do not get in touch with the authors directly.
• Impartiality in judgment: Take care to refrain from evaluating the work based on factors other than the caliber of the study and its written presentation, such as financial, intellectual, or personal biases.
• Double-anonymized peer review: Notify the editors right away if you unintentionally learn the identity of the author from any source, including reading a preprint or going to a conference.
• Involvement of junior researchers or colleagues: Get editors' permission in advance if you would want to include junior researchers or if a senior colleague asks you to contribute to a review. The reviewer's consent must be recorded in the 'Confidential Comments to the Editor' section upon submission of the review, and the supervisor must consent to offer assistance throughout the review process.
• Refraining from self-promotion: Reviewers should follow COPE standards and not advise writers to cite their work in order to increase their citation count or increase their visibility. Any recommendations should have sound scientific or technological justifications.
• Neutrality toward non-positive outcomes: You shouldn't let a study's non-positive results disproportionately affect how good you think it is. Regardless of the nature of the results, reviewers are expected to assess the research objectively.
• Updating affiliation information: Make sure your reviewer account's affiliation information is accurate. This guarantees that before asking you to review an article, editors may quickly ascertain whether the authors have any possible conflicts of interest. Maintaining the accuracy of this data helps to preserve the integrity of the manuscript review procedure.

The following are typical ethical concerns to be mindful of when reviewing for EduRE:

• Publication or submission to another publication: It is advised that you get in touch with the editors as once to address any suspicions that the manuscript has been concurrently published or submitted to another publication. In order to ensure proper credit to earlier distribution or publication, authors are obliged to notify to the editor any prior distribution or publishing of content.
• Plagiarism: It is imperative that you alert the editors if you believe that the manuscript plagiarizes from other people's writing. Plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other violations of ethical publication practices are taken very severely by EduRE. To preserve the integrity of the journals and defend the rights of authors, investigations are carried out.
• Ethical issues in research: It is important to inform the editors if you have any reservations regarding the ethics of the research done for the manuscript. It is the authors' duty to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and the funding sources for the study. Authors also need to make sure they have the right authorization before using any data or findings that they have got from other people.

In order to preserve the caliber and integrity of the published research in EduRE, it is imperative that these ethical concerns be addressed:

• Reviews need to be done objectively, and reviewers need to be aware of any personal prejudices they may have and take those into account when assessing a work. It is not appropriate to criticize the author personally. Referees must clearly state their opinions and offer evidence to back up their decisions.
• Reviewers who have potential conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated with the manuscript must first consult with the editors before agreeing to review a manuscript.
• If a reviewer requests that an author include citations to their own (or their collaborators') work, the request should be made for legitimate scientific grounds rather than to increase the reviewer's or their associates' prominence or to artificially inflate their citation count.

Ethics for Editor

When handling any case, the editors follow the rules established by the COPE.

Selecting which of the manuscripts submitted to EduRE should be published is the exclusive and autonomous responsibility of the editor, who frequently collaborates with the pertinent society.

The editor is responsible for making sure the peer review procedure is impartial, timely, and fair.  Normally, the manuscript need to be examined by at least two reviewers using a double blind process. If more opinions are needed, the editor should get them.

Taking into consideration the necessity for adequate, inclusive, and diverse representation, the editor will choose reviewers who possess the necessary experience in the pertinent subject. In order to prevent choosing dishonest peer reviewers, the editor will adhere to best practices. To ascertain whether there is a possibility of bias, the editor will go over all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and proposals for self-citation made by reviewers.

Editors are supposed to evaluate manuscripts only on the basis of their intellectual merit, without taking into account the political philosophy, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or race of the authors. The editor should give the requirement for inclusive and varied representation top priority when proposing candidates for the editorial board.

The editorial guidelines of the publication are made to encourage openness and thorough, truthful reporting. It is the editor's responsibility to make sure that writers and peer reviewers are aware of the expectations that are put on them. For all correspondence pertaining to the journal, the editor should also use the regular electronic submission procedure.

It is the editor's responsibility to work with the publisher to establish an open appeals process for editorial decisions. The legitimacy and importance of the work to readers and scholars should serve as the foundation for decisions. The journal's editorial board regulations may serve as a guide for the editor, who also has to abide by any applicable legal obligations with regard to issues like plagiarism, libel, and copyright violations. The editor may choose to confer with other editors, reviewers, or society officers during the decision-making process.

Unless otherwise agreed upon with the relevant authors and reviewers, the editor is required to protect the privacy of all material submitted to the journal and any correspondence with reviewers. When it is thought important to look into possible ethical transgressions, the editor may, under unusual circumstances and after consulting with the publisher, provide restricted information to editors of other journals, institutes, or groups looking into incidents of research misconduct.

The editor is responsible for protecting reviewers' identities. Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript that is submitted should not be used by the editor for personal research without the author's express written agreement. Ideas or privileged information that are acquired through the peer-review process should not be used for selfish gain and should be handled with confidentiality.

It is forbidden for the editor to try to influence the publication's rating by inflating any journal metric. More specifically, unless there are legitimate scholarly justifications, the editor shouldn't require citations to journal papers. The editor's own articles or goods and services in which the editor has an interest cannot be mentioned in writing without the consent of the authors.

The editor shall give written notice to the publisher of any potential conflicts of interest before being appointed. Any new conflicts that occur should also be updated right away. In the interest of transparency, the publisher may publish declarations of possible conflicts of interest in the journal.

It is forbidden for the editor to take part in choices about papers that they have written, that have been written by their relatives or associates, or that are connected to goods or services in which the editor has a personal stake. Such submissions must follow the journal's regular procedures, and peer review must be carried out without consulting the relevant author(s) or editor(s) or their research groups. Any published work resulting from such submissions should contain a clear statement to that effect.

Maintaining the integrity of the published record is another duty of the editor. This entails actively investigating and evaluating research, publication, reviewer, and editorial misconduct that has been reported or is suspected of occurring.

In the event that misbehavior is reported or suspected, the editor will usually take action by contacting the manuscript or paper's author. The editor will carefully review the complaint or claims presented, and if necessary, may get in touch with the pertinent organizations and research groups. In addition, the editor is supposed to make use of the publisher's systems—such as plagiarism detection tools—that are intended to identify wrongdoing.

The editor should work with the publisher and/or society to expedite the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or any other corrective action deemed necessary to rectify the scholarly record in a timely and transparent manner in the event that they are presented with compelling evidence of misconduct.