Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research, called PETiER, is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the PETiER does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
- The author (s) must not contact persons involved in the evaluation process during or before manuscript evaluation.
- Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. The names of the individuals who do not contribute to the study must not be included among the authors. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. No author names can be added after submission. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g., language editing or medical writing), they should be recognized in the acknowledgments section.
- If there is a conflict of interest regarding the study, the process under Conflict of Interest must be followed.
- Articles submitted to Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research must be original. Citations from other sources must be clearly stated. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.
- Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.
- Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
- Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
- Raw data can be requested during the review process. In such a case, authors are asked to provide their raw data as soon as possible.
- Authors are responsible for obtaining permissions from related individuals, organizations, etc., if necessary.
- A manuscript cannot be sent to more than one journal at a time for evaluation.
- If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
- For human subjects, the author should ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. All animal experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and should be carried out in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and associated guidelines, or EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes] URL
- Appropriate consents, permissions, and releases must be obtained where an author wishes to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals in publication. Written consents must be retained by the author and copies of the consents or evidence that such consents have been obtained must be provided to Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research on request.
- WAME defines conflict of interest as “a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities, such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.
- All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed, as should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement, then this should be stated.
- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.
Ethical appropriateness checklist
- Have you obtained official permissions for data collection/use, etc.?
- If you have used copyrighted materials, have you received copyright permissions?
- If you have used data, tools, or procedures from previously published sources, have you obtained necessary permissions from persons or institutions that can claim copyright?
- Have you cited the information from other published sources appropriately?
- Have you obtained consent letters from your participants or can you provide answers to the questions from the Editor regarding this issue?
- If you have used animals in your study, have you applied the procedures within appropriate limits?
- Have you taken necessary precautions to maintain the confidentiality and safety of the participants or other parties participated in your study?
- If there is more than one author, has each author read and agreed on the content of the submitted version?
- The editor of a learned journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making these decisions.
- The editors take as references the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.” This has a large resource on the topic of ethical conduct of journal editors, authors, and reviewers. Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research also has an extensive number of resources to help new and established editors undertake their roles as editors.
- The editor shall ensure that the peer review process (double-blind reviewers) is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary, the editor should seek additional opinions. The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.
- The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
- The editorial policies of the journal should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and the editor should ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The editor shall use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications.
- The editor shall establish, along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions.
- The editor must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.
- The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect reviewers’ identities. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
- Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be declared to the publisher in writing prior to the appointment of the editor and then updated if and when new conflicts arise. The publisher may publish such declarations in the journal.
- The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers that s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or colleagues or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there must be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published. The editor should work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct (research, publication, reviewer, and editorial), in conjunction with the publisher (or society).
- Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies. The editor shall further make appropriate use of the publisher’s systems for the detection of misconduct, such as plagiarism.
- An editor presented with convincing evidence of misconduct should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to arrange the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record as may be relevant
- Storing all records.
- Supporting freedom of thought.
- Reviewers should agree to review submissions only relevant to their specific fields.
- Reviewers should not Access information about the author(s) identity. In case of accessing or receiving such information, the evaluation process must be ended.
- The evaluation process should be completed with total objectivity and confidentiality. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
- If reviewers believe that there is a conflict of interest, they should reject to evaluate the manuscript and inform the Editor on the issue. Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Reviewers can use the content of the manuscripts they evaluate only after acceptance. They cannot use any information from the manuscripts rejected for publication.
- The evaluation process must be completed objectively on the content of the manuscript. Personal characteristics such as nationality, gender, religion, political views, or commercial conflicts must not interfere with the reviewers’ decisions.
- Reviewers should have a constructive and polite attitude towards submitted work. They should avoid degrading or offensive language in communication with authors.
- Reviewers should comply with evaluation deadlines and ethical responsibilities.
- Editors are fully responsible for publication processes. Because editors hold the responsibility of decisions on the submissions and published articles, the Publisher declares and guarantees free editor decisions to be maintained.
- The Publisher holds the right of property and copyright of each published work and has the responsibility to keep a copy.
- The Publisher has the responsibility to take all the precautions to avoid scientific exploitation and plagiarism crimes against the Editor. The publisher has a supporting, investing, and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
- The Publisher promotes best practices by offering editors membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).