Publication Ethics & Malpractice

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) adheres to the ethical principles, policies, and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We expect all parties involved in the publication process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—to comply with the responsibilities below.

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  • PedPer considers only original, unpublished works.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/dissertations are acceptable provided that authors clearly disclose this at submission and cite the thesis/dissertation where applicable, and confirm that no copyright restrictions prevent publication.

1.2 Authorship

  • All listed authors must have significantly contributed to the work and approved the final version.
  • Guest/gift authorship, ghost authorship, and omission of rightful authors are unethical and strictly prohibited.
  • Authorship must comply with the journal’s Authorship Criteria.
  • Authorship changes (addition/removal/order) after submission require:
    1. a written request explaining the reason,
    2. written agreement from all authors, and
    3. editorial approval.

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 must be disclosed.

1.4 Plagiarism and Citation Practices

  • All sources must be appropriately cited.
  • Plagiarism, unacceptable self-plagiarism/text recycling, citation manipulation, and excessive self-citation are serious ethical violations.
  • PedPer may use similarity-checking tools (e.g., iThenticate) and may reject manuscripts or request clarification/corrections when overlap is judged unacceptable.

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.

1.6 Ethics Approval and Informed Consent

  • Studies involving human participants, animals, or sensitive/personal data must obtain appropriate ethics approval prior to data collection (where required).
  • Authors must clearly state in the manuscript (and on the title page where required):
    • Name of the ethics committee
    • Approval date
    • Ethics approval/reference number
  • Personal data must be anonymized and handled in accordance with applicable data-protection standards. Where relevant, authors must confirm informed consent procedures.

1.7 Conflict of Interest

  • Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest that could affect objectivity.
  • If no conflicts exist, a statement declaring no conflict of interest must be included.

1.8 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, expressions of concern, or retractions when warranted, guided by COPE-aligned best practices.

1.9 Editorial Action and Misconduct

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

  • plagiarism or unacceptable overlap,
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest,
  • authorship disputes,
  • data fabrication/falsification,
  • duplicate/redundant publication,
  • peer review manipulation (e.g., fake reviewer identities/emails).

Possible actions include rejection (pre-publication), publication of a correction/expression of concern, or retraction (post-publication), depending on the case.

2) Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers are expected to maintain high standards of editorial integrity in line with COPE-oriented good practice.

2.1 Editors Must

  • Ensure fair, impartial, and timely decisions based on scholarly merit.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the editorial process.
  • Safeguard the integrity of peer review and prevent manipulation or bias.
  • Respond promptly to ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct and request evidence when needed.
  • Declare and manage conflicts of interest; when a conflict exists, the manuscript is handled by an independent editor.

2.2 Reviewers Must

  • Respect confidentiality and the anonymity of the peer review process.
  • Declare conflicts of interest and decline review when appropriate.
  • Provide constructive, respectful, and unbiased feedback.
  • Avoid using submitted materials for personal advantage or research.
  • Inform the editorial team if they suspect plagiarism, unethical conduct, duplicate submission, data issues, or other concerns.

3) Retraction and Withdrawal Policy

3.1 Withdrawal (Pre-publication)

Withdrawal applies to manuscripts before publication. Withdrawal requests must be submitted by the corresponding author in writing and are considered by the editors under defined conditions.

3.2 Retraction (Post-publication)

Retraction applies to published articles when serious ethical breaches are confirmed, including (but not limited to):

  • Plagiarism
  • Data falsification/fabrication
  • Undisclosed authorship issues
  • Duplicate/redundant publication
  • Peer review manipulation

PedPer follows COPE-oriented guidance when evaluating post-publication actions.

For further reference: COPE Retraction Guidelines: https://publicationethics.org

Related policies: Corrections/Retractions/Expressions of Concern • Handling Allegations of Misconduct • Peer Review Policy • Conflict of Interest Statement • Thematic Issue Policy