Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Pedagogical Research (JPR) is committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, transparency, fairness, and accountability in scholarly publishing. The journal’s publication ethics policies are guided by the Core Principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and relevant COPE guidance, together with internationally recognized principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.

This statement defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher and explains the journal’s procedures for addressing ethical concerns before and after publication.

1. Ethical Guidelines for Research

The Journal of Pedagogical Research (JPR) is committed to upholding high ethical standards in research. Authors submitting manuscripts to JPR must ensure that their research adheres to applicable ethical requirements, relevant COPE guidance, and internationally recognized principles of research integrity and best practice.

1.1. Research Integrity

Researchers must present their work honestly, accurately, and transparently. Data, findings, images, analyses, or other research materials must not be fabricated, falsified, manipulated, or presented in a misleading manner. Research design, methodology, analytical procedures, and results should be described with sufficient transparency to permit critical appraisal and, where applicable, replication or reproducibility. Researchers remain accountable for the integrity and accuracy of their work throughout the research and publication process.

1.2. Ethical Approval, Informed Consent, and Participant Protection

Research involving human participants, animals, identifiable personal information, or other ethically sensitive materials must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international ethical standards.

Where ethical review is required, authors must obtain approval from an appropriately constituted research ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research and provide the relevant approval information in the manuscript.

Where formal ethical approval is not required or a study has been granted an exemption or waiver under applicable institutional or national requirements, authors should clearly state the basis for this in the manuscript.

Informed consent must be obtained where required. Where consent has been waived by an authorized ethics body or is not applicable to the study design, this should be clearly explained.

Research involving children, minors, persons with impaired decision-making capacity, or other vulnerable individuals or groups must include additional safeguards appropriate to the nature of the study and the participants involved. Where participants are not legally or practically able to provide fully informed consent, permission or consent must be obtained from a parent, legal guardian, legally authorized representative, or next of kin, as applicable under relevant law, institutional requirements, and ethics approval. Where participants are capable of expressing a preference or understanding the research, their assent should also be obtained where appropriate, in addition to any required proxy consent. Researchers must respect participants’ dignity, autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, welfare, and right to withdraw throughout the research process.

1.3. Avoidance of Misconduct

Authors must ensure that their work is original and appropriately acknowledges the work of others. Unattributed use of another person’s ideas, text, data, images, or other scholarly material constitutes plagiarism and is prohibited. Reuse of an author’s own previously published material must be appropriately disclosed and cited and must comply with the journal’s policies on text reuse, copyright, and redundant publication. Data or findings must not be fabricated, falsified, manipulated, or presented in a misleading manner, and authors must avoid unsupported or exaggerated claims about their research.

1.4. Data Availability and Reproducibility

Authors are responsible for the integrity and appropriate retention of the data and other materials supporting their research. Research articles must include a Data Availability Statement indicating whether and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed. Where data sharing is not applicable to the article, this should be stated.

Where ethically and legally possible, authors are encouraged to deposit data in an appropriate repository and provide a persistent link or DOI. Authors may be asked to provide underlying data or relevant documentation to the editors when necessary to assess concerns about the reliability or integrity of the work.

Where data cannot be shared because of participant confidentiality, privacy, ethical approval conditions, legal restrictions, or other legitimate reasons, these restrictions must be clearly stated.

1.5. Use of Generative AI in Research

Authors must use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in accordance with JPR’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy. AI technologies cannot replace human scholarly judgment, ethical responsibility, or author accountability. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, citations, data, analyses, and conclusions of their work. Any use requiring disclosure must be reported in accordance with the journal’s AI policy.

1.6. Research Misconduct

Allegations of research or publication misconduct will be assessed fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the procedures described in Section 6: Research and Publication Misconduct and relevant COPE guidance. JPR does not presume misconduct solely on the basis of an allegation. Authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond, and any editorial action will be proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and available evidence of the concern.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and credibility of academic publishing. The Journal of Pedagogical Research (JPR) outlines the following ethical responsibilities for authors, based on COPE guidance and internationally recognized principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing:

2.1. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts represent their original scholarly work. Reproducing or paraphrasing substantial portions of another person’s work without appropriate attribution constitutes plagiarism and is prohibited.

Authors must appropriately cite relevant sources, including their own previously published work. Substantial reuse of previously published text, data, figures, or other material must be appropriately disclosed, cited, and handled in accordance with applicable copyright and publication ethics requirements.

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using text-similarity detection software. Similarity reports are used as editorial screening tools and do not by themselves constitute evidence of plagiarism. Where potentially inappropriate overlap is identified, the material will be evaluated in context and may lead to further inquiry or appropriate editorial action.

2.2. Data Integrity

Authors must ensure that all data reported in the manuscript are accurate, complete, and free from fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation. Methods, analytical procedures, and results must be reported with sufficient transparency to permit critical appraisal and, where applicable, replication or reproducibility. Authors may be requested to provide underlying data or supporting documentation during editorial assessment or peer review and should retain relevant research materials for an appropriate period after publication in accordance with applicable ethical, institutional, disciplinary, legal, and funder requirements.

2.3. Ethical Research Practices

Research involving human participants, animals, identifiable personal information, or other ethically sensitive materials must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements. Where ethical approval is required, the relevant approval information must be reported in the manuscript. Informed consent must be obtained where required; where consent has been waived by an authorized ethics body or is not applicable to the study design, the basis for this must be clearly explained. Research involving minors, participants with impaired decision-making capacity, or other vulnerable populations must comply with the additional consent, assent, and participant-protection requirements set out in Section 1.2, Ethical Approval, Informed Consent, and Participant Protection.

Authors must protect participants’ privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and rights. Identifiable personal information must not be published without appropriate authorization or another valid ethical and legal basis.

2.4. Authorship and Contributorship

Criteria for Authorship: Authorship is limited to individuals who have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the conception or design of the work; acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or drafting or substantive revision of the manuscript, and who accept accountability for their contribution.
Accountability: All listed authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for the integrity of their contributions.
Contributorship: Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission where required.
No Guest, Gift, or Ghost Authorship: Individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria must not be listed as authors, and individuals who meet the criteria must not be omitted.
Changes in Authorship: Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be justified and approved by all affected authors. JPR may request supporting documentation before approving such changes.

2.5. Conflict of Interest

Disclosure: Authors must disclose any financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research or its interpretation.
Conflict-of-Interest Statement: All manuscripts must include a conflict-of-interest statement. If no relevant conflicts exist, authors should explicitly state that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding Disclosure: Authors must identify all sources of financial support for the research and publication of the work and, where relevant, describe the role of the funder in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit for publication. If the funder had no such role, this should be stated where appropriate.

2.6. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submissions

Manuscripts submitted to JPR must not be simultaneously under consideration by another journal and must not have been formally published elsewhere. Posting a manuscript on a recognized preprint server does not constitute prior publication, provided that the preprint is disclosed to JPR at submission and otherwise complies with the journal’s editorial policies.

Publishing the same or substantially similar content in more than one journal without appropriate disclosure or justification may constitute redundant or duplicate publication. Suspected cases will be assessed in accordance with Section 6 and relevant COPE guidance and may result in rejection, correction, retraction, or other proportionate editorial action.

2.7. Reporting Errors

Authors who discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work must promptly notify the journal and cooperate with the editorial team in determining the appropriate action. Where necessary, authors are expected to cooperate in the publication of a correction, retraction, or other appropriate update to the scholarly record.

2.8. Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

Authors must comply with JPR’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy. Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scholarly work. Generative AI output must not be cited as an authoritative scholarly source.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, citations, data, analyses, and conclusions of their manuscript. Use of generative AI must be disclosed in accordance with the journal’s AI policy in a dedicated Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies where disclosure is required.

2.9. Compliance with Journal Policies

Authors must comply with JPR’s submission and manuscript preparation requirements, including applicable requirements concerning structure, formatting, and length. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that their manuscript complies with JPR’s publication ethics policies and all applicable ethical, legal, and research-integrity requirements.

3. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors of the Journal of Pedagogical Research (JPR) play a pivotal role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and ethical standards of the journal’s publications. In line with COPE guidance and internationally recognized principles of editorial independence and publication ethics, the following responsibilities outline the ethical and professional conduct required from editors.

3.1. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be based on the academic merit, originality, quality, and relevance of a manuscript to the journal’s aims and scope. Decisions must be independent of personal relationships, political considerations, financial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other commercial influences. Editors must ensure that characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political views do not improperly influence editorial evaluation or publication decisions.

3.2. Confidentiality

Editors must treat manuscripts, correspondence, reviewer reports, and all other materials associated with submission and peer review as confidential. Information concerning a manuscript may be shared only with the corresponding author, reviewers or potential reviewers, relevant editorial staff, the publisher, or other parties whose involvement is necessary for legitimate editorial or ethical purposes.

3.3. Managing the Peer Review Process

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriately qualified and impartial reviewers with relevant expertise and for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated in accordance with JPR’s double-blind peer review process. Editors must protect the independence and fairness of peer review and should facilitate timely communication with authors and reviewers throughout the editorial process.

3.4. Handling Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relevant conflict of interest could compromise or reasonably be perceived as compromising their impartiality. Such manuscripts must be reassigned to an appropriate independent editor. Editors must also take reasonable steps to ensure that invited reviewers do not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence of their evaluation.

3.5. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or members of the Editorial Board receive no preferential treatment and are subject to the same editorial and peer review standards as other submissions.

An editor or Editorial Board member who is an author or co-author of a manuscript will have no involvement in its initial assessment, reviewer selection, access to confidential reviewer information, evaluation of reviewer reports, or editorial decision.

Such manuscripts will be assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest with the authors and who will oversee the peer review process and editorial decision independently.

JPR monitors editorial endogeny as part of its quality assurance procedures. To minimize endogeny and preserve editorial independence, the proportion of published research papers in which at least one author is an editor, Editorial Board member, or reviewer of JPR must not exceed 25% of the research papers published in either of the journal’s two most recent issues.

3.6. Addressing Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

JPR takes reasonable and proportionate steps when concerns are raised regarding submitted or published work. Potential misconduct may include plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate image or data manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, authorship manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other serious breaches of research or publication ethics.

Allegations will be assessed fairly and confidentially. Authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond to concerns before a final editorial determination is made. Depending on the circumstances, the journal may request supporting documentation, seek independent expert advice, or contact the authors’ institution, research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, or other appropriate body.

Appropriate editorial actions may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another update to the scholarly record, in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

3.7. Maintenance of the Scholarly Record

Editors are responsible for responding appropriately to concerns affecting published content and for applying the journal’s procedures on corrections, retractions, Expressions of Concern, article removal, and other post-publication actions as set out in Section 5 of this statement.

3.8. Quality Assurance

Editors are responsible for ensuring that published content meets JPR’s scholarly, editorial, linguistic, formatting, and technical quality standards and remains consistent with the journal’s aims and scope. Editorial quality assurance should support the publication of rigorous and relevant scholarship that contributes meaningfully to research in pedagogy and education.

3.9. Continuous Improvement

Editors should periodically review the journal’s editorial and ethical policies in light of developments in scholarly publishing and relevant best-practice guidance. Feedback from authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may also be considered when evaluating and improving journal procedures.

3.10. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Handling

Editors must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not upload confidential submission materials to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external AI services that cannot guarantee confidentiality. AI tools must not replace independent editorial judgment or be used to make autonomous editorial decisions. Any automated tools used by the journal for integrity screening or workflow support must remain subject to appropriate human oversight.

Any routine use of automated tools by JPR or its publisher for integrity screening, workflow support, reviewer suggestions, text-similarity detection, image or figure screening, or related purposes will be appropriately disclosed in the relevant journal policy. Such tools must be appropriately evaluated before routine use. Automated outputs or integrity flags will not, by themselves, determine editorial action; they will be reviewed and verified by an editor or appropriately qualified member of the journal team.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in the scholarly publishing process by ensuring the quality, integrity, and academic merit of submitted manuscripts. In line with COPE guidance and internationally recognized principles of ethical peer review, the Journal of Pedagogical Research (JPR) outlines the following responsibilities for reviewers:

4.1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review and all associated materials must be treated as confidential and must not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the authorized editorial process. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, arguments, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage, competitive purposes, or to disadvantage others.

4.2. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and base their assessments on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field. Review reports should provide clear, constructive, and professionally expressed feedback that can assist authors and editors. Personal criticism, hostile language, or comments unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript are inappropriate.

4.3. Expertise and Competence

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise to provide an informed assessment of the manuscript. A reviewer who believes that a manuscript falls substantially outside their expertise, or who cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe, should promptly notify the editor and decline the assignment.

4.4. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If an unforeseen delay occurs, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly so that appropriate arrangements can be made and unnecessary delays to the editorial process can be avoided.

4.5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the editor to any apparent ethical or research-integrity concerns, including suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate data or image manipulation, or potential ethical problems in the conduct or reporting of research. Where applicable, reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript reports appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, participant protection, and related ethical safeguards and should bring apparent inconsistencies to the editor’s attention.

4.6. Acknowledgment of Sources and Citation Ethics

Relevant Literature: Reviewers may identify important scholarly work that has been materially overlooked where its inclusion is necessary for the fair evaluation, contextualization, or interpretation of the manuscript.
No Citation Coercion: Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, JPR, associated authors, or particular publications. Suggested citations must be academically relevant and, where appropriate, supported by a scholarly justification.
Overlapping Content: Reviewers should alert the editor to substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other work of which they are aware.

4.7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other conflict of interest that could compromise or reasonably be perceived as compromising their objectivity. Where a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment and inform the editor.

4.8. Review Quality

Reviewers should provide sufficiently detailed, clear, and evidence-based assessments addressing the manuscript’s methodology, analysis, results, interpretation, presentation, and overall scholarly contribution as appropriate to the study. Recommendations regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection should be supported by clear scholarly reasons.

4.9. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials. Manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, or other confidential submission materials must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI systems or external AI services that cannot guarantee confidentiality.

AI tools must not be used to replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly assessment or generate substantive evaluations of a manuscript. Where permitted under the journal’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy, reviewers may use appropriate tools solely to improve the language or clarity of comments they have independently prepared, provided that no confidential manuscript content is disclosed. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and integrity of their reports.

5. Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern, and Post-Publication Issues

JPR is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Concerns relating to published articles are assessed according to their nature and seriousness and in accordance with relevant COPE guidance, including the COPE Retraction Guidelines where applicable.

5.1. Corrections

A correction may be published where an error or omission affects the accuracy, clarity, interpretation, attribution, or integrity of an article but does not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions. Corrections will be clearly identified, dated, and linked to the original article. The original article will also be linked to the correction notice where appropriate.

5.2. Retractions

An article may be retracted where there is clear evidence that its findings or conclusions are unreliable, serious research or publication misconduct has occurred, the article constitutes unjustified redundant publication, or other circumstances substantially undermine the integrity of the published record.

A retraction notice will clearly identify the article, explain the reason for retraction, and state who is retracting the article. The notice and the original article will be linked to one another.

The original article will normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record but will be clearly and prominently identified as Retracted. Retraction is intended primarily to correct the scholarly record and alert readers to unreliable or seriously compromised content.

Retraction notices will remain permanently and freely accessible and will not be removed from the journal website.

5.3. Expressions of Concern

JPR may publish an Expression of Concern where serious questions have been raised regarding an article but the available evidence is inconclusive, an investigation is ongoing, or a final determination cannot yet reasonably be reached. The Expression of Concern will be linked to the original article and may subsequently be followed by a correction, retraction, or other editorial notice.

5.4. Article Removal

Removal of published article content will be considered only in exceptional circumstances, including where continued availability would violate legal requirements, seriously infringe privacy or confidentiality, create a significant risk of harm, or where removal is otherwise legally required. Where legally possible, the bibliographic record and an explanatory notice will remain available.

5.5. Post-Publication Concerns

Readers, authors, institutions, and other interested parties may notify the journal of substantive concerns regarding published content. JPR may seek responses from the authors, consult independent experts, request supporting documentation, or initiate a publication ethics investigation. Where the scholarly record is affected, the journal may issue a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice.

Where appropriate, JPR may also consider scholarly responses, commentaries, or other forms of post-publication discussion, subject to editorial assessment and, where warranted, peer review.

6. Research and Publication Misconduct

JPR evaluates suspected breaches of research and publication ethics on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

Concerns may include plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, simultaneous submission, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate manipulation of data or images, authorship manipulation, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other serious breaches of publication ethics.

The journal will assess the available evidence and will normally provide the authors with an opportunity to respond. Where appropriate, JPR may consult independent experts or notify relevant institutions, research integrity offices, ethics committees, funders, publishers, or other appropriate bodies.

Depending on the nature, severity, and evidence of the violation, actions may include termination of peer review, rejection of the manuscript, correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, restrictions on future submissions, or other proportionate measures. Restrictions on future submissions will not be applied automatically and will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The journal distinguishes between allegations requiring editorial action and determinations of research misconduct that fall within the authority of institutions or other competent bodies.

7. Complaints and Appeals

JPR is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, objectively, confidentially, and without retaliation.

7.1. Complaints

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may submit complaints concerning editorial procedures, peer review, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, editorial conduct, or published content to ijopr.editor@gmail.com or info@ijopr.com.

Complaints should clearly describe the concern and, where possible, include relevant supporting information or documentation. Complaints will normally be acknowledged within three working days. The journal aims to provide a substantive response within four weeks; where additional time is required, the complainant will be informed of the progress of the case.

A person who is the subject of a complaint or has a relevant conflict of interest will not participate in its investigation or resolution. Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an independent senior member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the matter.

7.2. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a material error occurred in the editorial or peer review process or that relevant evidence was not adequately considered. Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and address the relevant editorial and reviewer comments. Mere disagreement with the outcome of peer review, without substantive grounds, is not sufficient for reconsideration.

Appeals will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or, where appropriate, by an independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed.

7.3. Final Resolution

Following completion of the journal’s complaints or appeals procedure, the journal will communicate the outcome and, where appropriate, the reasons for the decision to the complainant or appellant.

8. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher supports the integrity, continuity, and independence of JPR’s scholarly publishing activities while respecting the editorial independence of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

The publisher is responsible for maintaining appropriate publishing infrastructure, supporting the implementation of the journal’s editorial and ethical policies, and supporting the long-term accessibility and preservation of published content in accordance with JPR’s Digital Preservation and Archiving Policy.

Financial considerations, Article Processing Charges, sponsorship, partnerships, or other commercial interests must not influence peer review, manuscript selection, or editorial decisions.

The publisher will support appropriate corrections, retractions, Expressions of Concern, and other actions necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record and will cooperate, where appropriate, with authors, institutions, funders, indexing services, and other relevant bodies in resolving serious integrity concerns.

Editorial decisions concerning individual manuscripts remain under the authority of the journal’s editorial leadership and are independent of commercial considerations.

Adherence to these principles supports the integrity, quality, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record published by the Journal of Pedagogical Research. Authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher are expected to act in accordance with the responsibilities set out in this statement. Suspected breaches will be assessed under the relevant JPR policies and procedures and, where appropriate, relevant COPE guidance. Any editorial action will be based on the nature, seriousness, and available evidence of the concern and will be proportionate to the circumstances.