Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Ethical Standards for Authors, Reviewers, Editors and Responsible Scholarly Publication

Accuracy, Originality and Accountability

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts accurately represent the research conducted, the evidence obtained and the conclusions reasonably supported by that evidence.

Authors should provide honest accounts of research methods, data, analysis and interpretation and should not fabricate, falsify, selectively manipulate or knowingly misrepresent evidence.

All authors are expected to comply with applicable requirements concerning originality, attribution, authorship, conflicts of interest, participant protection, copyright and responsible use of artificial intelligence.

Submitted manuscripts should represent original scholarly work. The words, ideas, theories, models, data, instruments, figures, tables and intellectual contributions of other scholars should be appropriately acknowledged.

Direct plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, mosaic plagiarism, translation plagiarism, data plagiarism, image plagiarism and substantial undisclosed reuse of previously published material are inconsistent with responsible academic practice.

Similarity-detection tools may assist editorial screening, but a numerical similarity score alone should not be treated as automatic proof of plagiarism. The nature, source, context and significance of matched material require scholarly evaluation.

Authorship Should Reflect Genuine Scholarly Contribution

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis, interpretation or preparation of the scholarly work and who accept responsibility for the manuscript.

All listed authors should approve the submitted version and agree to be accountable for the integrity of their contribution and the published work.

Gift authorship, honorary authorship, guest authorship and ghost authorship are inappropriate. Individuals whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged where appropriate.

Requests to change authorship after submission should be explained transparently and may require confirmation from relevant contributors before an editorial decision is made.

Responsible Use of AI in Scholarly Work

Artificial-intelligence systems may assist with limited scholarly activities under appropriate human supervision, but they cannot be listed as authors or co-authors and must not replace original intellectual contribution, critical reasoning or human responsibility.

Material use of generative AI in manuscript preparation should be disclosed where appropriate. Authors remain responsible for independently verifying AI-assisted text, references, quotations, calculations, analyses and other scholarly content.

Artificial intelligence must not be used to fabricate participants, classroom observations, survey responses, interviews, references, data, results or other research evidence. Authors should also comply with the journal's separate Plagiarism and AI Content Policy.

Ethical Responsibility in Educational Research

Research involving teachers, student teachers, school students, college students, parents, administrators or other human participants should be conducted in accordance with applicable ethical, institutional and legal requirements.

Where ethical approval, institutional permission, informed consent or assent is required, authors should obtain such approval before conducting the relevant research and report appropriate information within the manuscript.

The dignity, privacy, confidentiality and voluntary participation of research participants should be respected throughout the research and publication process.

Educational research frequently involves minors or individuals who may be vulnerable because of age, disability, institutional dependency, socio-economic circumstances or other factors.

Authors should use research procedures that minimise unnecessary risk, protect participant dignity and comply with appropriate requirements concerning parental or guardian permission, participant assent and confidentiality where applicable.

Identifying information should not be published unnecessarily, particularly where disclosure could reasonably place a student, teacher, school or other participant at risk.

Authors should disclose relevant financial, professional, academic, institutional or personal relationships that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, the research or its interpretation.

Reviewers should disclose conflicts that could compromise impartial evaluation, and editors should avoid handling manuscripts where their own relationships or interests could reasonably interfere with independent editorial judgement.

A disclosed conflict does not automatically make research unsuitable for publication; transparency allows the potential influence to be appropriately considered.

Authors should disclose relevant financial support, research grants, sponsorship or institutional funding associated with the submitted work where applicable.

Where a sponsor or funding organisation influenced research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation or the decision to submit for publication, that involvement should be transparently described.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that third-party material incorporated into a manuscript is used lawfully and appropriately acknowledged.

Where permission is required for photographs, figures, tables, research instruments, substantial quotations or other protected material, authors should obtain appropriate permission before publication.

Providing a citation does not automatically substitute for copyright permission where such permission is required.

Fair and Independent Editorial Decision-Making

Editors should evaluate manuscripts on scholarly considerations such as originality, academic quality, relevance, methodological or theoretical soundness, clarity, ethical integrity and contribution to teacher education or pedagogical research.

Editorial decisions should not be improperly influenced by an author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, geographical location, professional position, seniority or other characteristics unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

Editors are responsible for protecting the integrity and fairness of the editorial process while maintaining appropriate confidentiality.

Confidential, Objective and Constructive Evaluation

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide reasoned, respectful and constructive scholarly comments.

Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished ideas, data, research instruments or findings for personal, competitive, academic or commercial advantage.

Reviewers should disclose significant conflicts of interest and should decline assignments where they cannot provide an informed and impartial evaluation.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and support, but do not independently determine, the final editorial decision.

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data and other non-public material associated with the review process should be treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers should not use confidential manuscript information for personal research, competitive advantage or other unauthorised purposes.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the editorial process regardless of whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, rejected or withdrawn.

Peer review should be genuine, independent and academically meaningful. Manipulation of reviewer identities, fabricated reviewer accounts, fraudulent recommendations or deliberate interference with independent evaluation is unacceptable.

Where reviewers are suggested by authors, any information supplied should be accurate and should not be designed to misrepresent the identity or independence of the proposed reviewer.

The editorial team may seek additional review, specialist advice or clarification where necessary to support a fair and informed publication decision.

✓ Personal attacks, insulting remarks or discriminatory comments are unacceptable.

✓ Reviewers should not appropriate unpublished ideas, findings or methods obtained through confidential review.

✓ Reviewers should not request irrelevant citations for personal or citation-related advantage.

✓ Reviewers should not intentionally delay evaluation for competitive or personal reasons.

✓ Reviewers should not communicate privately with authors about a manuscript in a manner that compromises the editorial process.

Images, graphs, diagrams, screenshots, photographs and other visual material should represent evidence accurately and should not be manipulated in a manner that materially misleads readers.

Where images are modified for legitimate purposes such as clarity or anonymisation, such modification should not alter the scholarly meaning of the underlying evidence.

AI-generated visual material should not be presented as authentic research evidence where it was not derived from the reported study.

Evidence-Based and Fair Examination

Potential misconduct may include plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, unethical treatment of research participants, citation manipulation, fraudulent peer review or deliberate misrepresentation of research.

Where a credible concern is raised, the journal may examine available evidence and request clarification or supporting information from the relevant author or other party.

An allegation does not by itself establish misconduct. Conclusions and editorial action should be based upon the available evidence, seriousness of the concern and reasonable consideration of relevant explanations.

Publication does not end the journal's responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. Credible concerns raised after publication may be examined where they materially affect the accuracy, ethical integrity or reliability of an article.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable post-publication requests for clarification and should notify the journal if they discover a significant error or integrity problem affecting their published research.

Where a published article contains an error that does not invalidate the overall scholarly work but should be corrected for accuracy, the journal may issue an appropriate correction or clarification.

Corrections should be sufficiently transparent to enable readers to understand what information has changed and why the correction was necessary.

Retraction may be considered where reliable evidence indicates that a published article is fundamentally unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, serious plagiarism, major ethical violation, duplicate publication or another significant problem affecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

An expression of concern may be considered where serious questions exist but available information is insufficient to reach a final conclusion or an external investigation remains unresolved.

Retraction or other post-publication action should aim to correct and protect the scholarly record rather than simply to punish authors.

Peer Review Informs; Editors Decide

Peer reviewers provide independent scholarly advice, but reviewer recommendations do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be published.

The responsible editor or authorised editorial team makes the final editorial decision after considering the manuscript, peer-review reports, author responses, ethical requirements, journal scope and other relevant scholarly considerations.