Publication Ethics

Rationale

The Polytechnic University of the Philippines is committed to promote and uphold the ethical and intellectual standards of research. Aligned to its strategic goals, the institution adheres to the ethical standards in research emphasizing beneficence, non-maleficence, respect, and justice in all research works.

To maintain integrity in every research work, the Education Review (EdRev) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research and academic publication. Manuscripts in this journal are selected through a rigorous peer-review process to ensure accuracy, novelty, significance, and quality. Thus, EdRev is guided by the following principles:

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors of original research should include an accurate overview of the work completed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be appropriately reported in the study. A paper should provide enough information and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or willfully inaccurate remarks are unethical and unprofessional.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that their works are completely original and that if they have used the work and/or words of others, they have properly cited or quoted them, and permission has been acquired when necessary. Proper recognition of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that impacted the presented study and provide appropriate context within the greater scholarly record. Information collected privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, may not be utilized or reported without the source's explicit, written permission.

Multiple, Redundant, and Concurrent Publication

In general, an author should not submit manuscripts presenting the same research to more than one journal of primary publication. It is unethical and improper to submit the same paper to multiple journals at the same time.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the submitted research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have contributed to certain substantive components of the work (for example, language editing) should be recognized in the acknowledgements section. The corresponding author should ensure that all suitable co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the article, and that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to its publication.

Competing Interests

All authors must declare any competing interests related to their article, whether financial or non-financial, that could influence their research and interpretation of results. This includes conflicts of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript. If unsure whether to disclose a competing interest, authors should consult their institution.

Use of Inclusive Language

To promote diversity, content should avoid making assumptions about demographic influence readers' opinions, convictions, and sense of superiority. The authors should use gender-neutral language and eliminate biased terms, stereotypes, and cultural assumptions.

 

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor make editorial judgments, and editorial discussions with the author can help them improve the manuscript. Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication and the foundation of the scientific process.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for consideration must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share the review or any other information about the manuscript with anybody, nor may they contact the authors personally, without the editor's consent.

Promptness

Any selected reviewer should tell the editor and withdraw from the review process if they believe they are unqualified to examine the research contained in a manuscript or are aware that prompt evaluation will be impossible.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Reviews should be objective. Reviewers should be conscious of any personal biases they may have and consider these when reviewing a manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is not appropriate. Reviewers should convey their opinions clearly and with supporting arguments.

 

Duties of the Editors

Publication decisions

The editor of a scholarly journal is solely and independently responsible for determining which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the journal's editorial board principles while also being bound by any legal requirements that may be in effect at the time, such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors or reviewers before making these judgments.

Peer Review

The editor shall guarantee that the peer review process is fair, neutral, and timely. Research publications are normally assessed by at least two external and independent reviewers, with the editor seeking additional perspectives as needed. The editor must choose reviewers with relevant experience while keeping in mind the need for acceptable, inclusive, and varied representation. The editor must follow best practices to avoid selecting fake peer reviewers. The editor will analyze all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and self-citation proposals made by reviewers to determine if there is a risk of bias.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about a submitted article to anybody other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, if necessary. Furthermore, to ensure fairness, reviewers will not know any information/details about the author, and the author as well will not know any information about the reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the publisher in writing prior to the editor's employment, and updated as new conflicts occur. The publisher may include such declarations in the journal. The editor shall not be involved in decisions about papers produced by himself or herself, family members, or coworkers, or that pertain to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Furthermore, any such submission must follow all of the journal's standard protocols; peer review must be conducted independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups; and any such manuscript that is published must include a clear statement to this effect.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Research misconduct such as plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, and violation of research standards in submitting, performing, and reviewing research should be primarily handle by the editorial team led by the editor in chief.

Upon receipt of a written allegation of research misconduct, the editor-in-chief shall convene the editorial board to review the allegation. The editorial board shall seek to establish if the complaint is a) an instance of research misconduct as defined above and b) specific and substantiated. If these requirements are not met, the editor-in-chief writes the complainant of the board’s decision to dismiss the complaint and the base for such dismissal. If these are met, the board consults with the referees of the article and may opt to consult with another expert in the research area concerned,

to further determine the substance of the allegation. In both instances, the respondent shall be advised in writing of the receipt of such an allegation and shall be allowed to respond.

If the manuscript in question has not yet been published in the journal, the board shall return the article to the author with specific advice on how to rework the article; the author is also given the option to withdraw the manuscript. If the manuscript has already been published in the journal and research misconduct is proven, the editor-in-chief shall notify the author and the institution to which the author is affiliated as well as the funding agency that supported the research. The board shall ensure correction of the literature in the succeeding issue through various methods as defined by the board. These may include errata, retractions, and apologies to be written by the author concerned.

Moreover, the board can opt to impose the following sanctions: 1. disallow the contributor concerned from refereeing a manuscript submission; 2. ban the contributor from publishing in the journal for a period the Board shall determine.

Intellectual Property

Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Author(s) retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Author(s) can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Author(s) are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Corrections and Retractions

  • Author Correction: An Author Correction may be published to correct an important error(s) made by the author(s) that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.
  • Publisher Correction: A Publisher Correction may be published to correct an important error(s) made by the journal that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or of the journal.
  • Retraction: An article may be retracted when the integrity of the published work is substantially undermined owing to errors in the conduct, analysis and/or reporting of the study. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study’s retraction.
  • Retraction: An article may be retracted when the integrity of the published work is substantially undermined owing to errors in the conduct, analysis and/or reporting of the study. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study’s retraction.

If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud, the journals and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation following the journal’s ethical guidelines. If, after an investigation, there are valid concerns, the authors concerned will be contacted under their given email address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the journal and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:

  • If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
  • If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
  1. An erratum/correction may be placed with the article.
  2. An editor’s note or editorial expression of concern may be placed with the article.
  3. Or, in severe cases, retraction of the article may occur.

The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, editor’s note, editorial expression of concern, or retraction notice. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform watermarked “retracted” and the explanation is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.

  • The author’s institution may be informed.
  • A notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included as part of the author’s and article’s bibliographic record.

 

References

Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office. COPE (2022). https://doi.org/10.24318/akfpebd1

Journal policy on research misconduct | Social Science Diliman. (13 March 2009). https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/socialsciencediliman/on_research_misconduct

Legal guide concerning ethics issues | Editors | Elsevier. (n.d.). www.elsevier.com. https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/legal-guide-for-editors

Publishing ethics | Elsevier policy. (n.d.). www.elsevier.com. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics#0-publishing-ethics

Publication Ethics | Philippine Normal University. (n.d.). https://po.pnuresearchportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Publication-Ethics.pdf