Publication Ethics & Malpractice Policy

PUBLICATION ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENT POLICY

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)

ISSN: 2822-4841 | DOI Prefix: 10.29329

Quick Summary

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. The journal’s ethical policies and practices are guided by and aligned with the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the publication process — authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher — are expected to comply with the responsibilities described below.

PedPer uses COPE flowcharts and guidelines as a reference when responding to ethical concerns, allegations of misconduct, and disputes at any stage of the publication process.

1) Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Originality and submission policy

PedPer considers only original, unpublished works.
Manuscripts must not be under review elsewhere and must not have been previously published in a substantially similar form.
Submissions derived from theses or dissertations are acceptable provided that authors clearly disclose this at submission, cite the thesis/dissertation where applicable, and confirm that no copyright restrictions prevent publication.

1.2 Authorship

All listed authors must have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work and approved the final version.
Guest/gift authorship, ghost authorship, and omission of rightful authors are strictly prohibited.
Authorship must comply with the journal’s Authorship & Contributorship criteria, which are aligned with COPE guidelines and encourage the use of CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy).
Authorship changes (addition, removal, or reordering) after submission require a written request, written agreement from all authors, and editorial approval.
Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors. See the Generative AI Policy for disclosure requirements.

1.3 Redundant or duplicate publication

Submitting multiple papers based on the same dataset or project without clear justification and transparency is not appropriate.
Fragmented or “salami-sliced” publications are discouraged. Related manuscripts and prior dissemination (including conference presentations and preprints) must be disclosed at submission.

1.4 Plagiarism and citation practices

All sources must be appropriately cited and acknowledged.
Plagiarism, unacceptable self-plagiarism/text recycling, citation manipulation, and excessive self-citation are serious ethical violations.
PedPer screens all submissions using iThenticate and may reject manuscripts or request clarification/corrections when overlap is judged unacceptable. See the Plagiarism & Similarity Policy for details.

1.5 Data integrity and fabrication

Data must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively reported, or misrepresented in any way.
Authors may be asked to provide raw data, instruments, or supplementary materials to support verification and transparency (where ethically and legally permissible).
Results should be accurate, verifiable, and ethically obtained.
Authors are encouraged to include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscripts, indicating whether and how the data supporting the study can be accessed by other researchers.

1.6 Ethics approval and informed consent

Studies involving human participants, animals, or sensitive/personal data must obtain appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB) approval prior to data collection.
Authors must clearly state in the manuscript (and on the title page):
Name of the approving ethics committee or IRB
Approval date and reference/protocol number
Research involving human participants must comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable national/institutional regulations.
Personal data must be anonymised and handled in accordance with applicable data-protection standards. Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from participants (or their legal guardians) where required.

Research involving children and vulnerable populations

PedPer is a signatory of the Ethical Research Involving Children (ERIC) Research involving children or other vulnerable populations must demonstrate additional safeguards, including age-appropriate informed consent/assent procedures, parental or guardian consent, and enhanced data protection measures. Authors must clearly describe these procedures in the manuscript.

1.7 Conflict of interest

Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or academic conflicts of interest that could affect or be perceived as affecting the objectivity of the research or its interpretation.
If no conflicts exist, a statement declaring no conflict of interest must be included.
All funding sources and financial or in-kind support must be acknowledged.
For full details, see the Conflicts of Interest (COI) Statement

1.8 Generative AI disclosure

Authors who have used generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or similar) in any aspect of manuscript preparation must disclose the specific tool(s) used, the purpose and extent of use, and the stage(s) of the research or writing process where AI was employed.
Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content in the manuscript, regardless of AI tool use.
For full details, see the Generative AI Policy.

1.9 Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

If authors discover a significant error in a manuscript (under review or published), they must promptly notify the editorial office.
The journal may publish corrections (errata/corrigenda), expressions of concern, or retractions when warranted, in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.
For full details, see the Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy.

2) Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

2.1 Fair and independent decision-making

Editors must ensure fair, impartial, and timely decisions based solely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Manuscripts must be evaluated without regard to the authors’ gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, political views, institutional affiliation, or academic rank.
The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over all editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, political, or institutional pressures.

2.2 Editorial independence

The publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions regarding the selection, evaluation, or publication of individual manuscripts. Editorial independence is a foundational principle of PedPer’s governance.

2.3 Confidentiality

Editors must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the editorial process. Information about submitted manuscripts must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4 Conflicts of interest

Editors must declare and manage conflicts of interest. When a conflict exists (e.g., personal, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationship with the authors), the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor who has no such conflict.
Editors must not use information obtained through the editorial process for their own research or any other advantage.

2.5 Responding to ethical concerns

Editors must respond promptly to ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct, request evidence when needed, and follow COPE flowcharts and guidelines when investigating and resolving cases.
For full details, see the Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

2.6 Safeguarding the peer review process

Editors must safeguard the integrity of the double-blind peer review process, prevent manipulation or bias, and ensure that reviewer selection is based on expertise and independence.
Editors must monitor for and take action against any attempt to manipulate the peer review process, including the use of fabricated reviewer identities or email addresses.

3) Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must respect confidentiality and the anonymity of the double-blind peer review process.
Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and decline review when they cannot provide an unbiased assessment.
Reviewers must provide constructive, respectful, evidence-based, and unbiased feedback within the agreed timeframe.
Reviewers must not use submitted materials for personal advantage or research.
Reviewers must inform the editorial team if they suspect plagiarism, unethical conduct, duplicate submission, data issues, or other concerns.
Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to evaluate manuscript content, as this could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the review process.
For full details, see the Peer Review Policy (Section 8: Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities).

4) Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher supports and upholds the editorial independence of PedPer and does not interfere with editorial decisions.
The publisher ensures that the journal has the necessary infrastructure, resources, and support to maintain high standards of scholarly publishing.
The publisher cooperates with editors and COPE when ethical concerns arise and supports investigations into allegations of misconduct.
The publisher ensures the long-term preservation and accessibility of published content through digital archiving services (LOCKSS, CLOCKSS). See the Archiving / Preservation Policy.
The publisher ensures that the journal’s policies, including open access, copyright, and fees, are clearly documented and publicly available.

5) Handling Allegations of Misconduct

When an allegation of misconduct is raised — whether during review or after publication — PedPer follows COPE flowcharts and guidelines to investigate and resolve the matter. The process includes:

Acknowledgment of the allegation and initial assessment of its validity;
Request for evidence and written statements from all parties involved;
Investigation by the Editor-in-Chief (and, where appropriate, consultation with the publisher, ethics experts, or the authors’ affiliated institutions);
A decision on the appropriate course of action: no action (if the allegation is found to be without merit), correction, expression of concern, retraction, or notification of the authors’ institution.

All parties are given the opportunity to respond before a final decision is made. The editorial office aims to handle allegations promptly and confidentially.

For full details, see the Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

6) Editorial Actions

The journal may take editorial action at any stage if ethical concerns arise, including (but not limited to):

Plagiarism or unacceptable textual overlap
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Authorship disputes or violations
Data fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation
Duplicate or redundant publication
Peer review manipulation (e.g., fabricated reviewer identities or email addresses)
Failure to obtain required ethics approval
Undisclosed use of generative AI tools

Possible actions include:

Desk rejection or rejection following review (pre-publication)
Request for correction or clarification
Publication of a correction (erratum/corrigendum), expression of concern, or retraction (post-publication)
Notification of the authors’ affiliated institution(s)
Reporting to relevant ethics bodies

The severity and scope of the action depend on the nature, extent, and intent of the misconduct, as assessed in accordance with COPE guidelines.

7) Retraction and Withdrawal

Withdrawal (pre-publication)

Withdrawal applies to manuscripts before publication. Withdrawal requests must be submitted by the corresponding author in writing using the Article Withdrawal Form. See the Peer Review Policy (Section 12) for conditions and procedures.

Retraction (post-publication)

Retraction applies to published articles when serious ethical breaches are confirmed, including (but not limited to) plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, undisclosed authorship issues, duplicate publication, or peer review manipulation. PedPer follows COPE Retraction Guidelines when evaluating post-publication actions.

Retracted articles remain in the scholarly record with a clearly linked retraction notice. For full details, see the Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy.

Related Policies