Human Research Ethics

Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) takes research ethics extremely seriously and prioritizes safeguarding the safety and well-being of study participants who are human volunteers, as well as their human rights and dignity. Any study publications that involve experiments with human subjects must explicitly state that researchers must receive both a research ethics certificate and permission from the Human Research Ethics Committee. The approval for publication of an article is subject to the consideration of the journal editorial board, which is final.

Reference Guidelines:
• COPE Core Practices
• WAME Editorial Policy Statements
• Declaration of Helsinki – Full Text

Publication Ethics

1. Editors' Ethics

1. Publication Decision: JELR accepts only manuscripts that have never been published elsewhere before (except in the form of an abstract) or are being considered for publication by another journal. The editorial team is responsible for determining which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor is guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
2. Confidentiality: The editor and editorial staff must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts until they are published, except in the case of suspicion of double submission or manuscripts that have been under revision or have been published elsewhere. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and are not allowed to be used for personal advantage.
3. Plagiarism: Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Editors must try to examine whether the submitted manuscript is free from plagiarism. All submissions will be examined by the editorial staff in terms of plagiarism by using plagiarism-detecting software.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All funding sources must be disclosed in the acknowledgement, and any conflicts of interest must be stated. All submissions must include disclosure of any relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest, such as funding organizations, affiliations of all the authors, advisors of the research project, etc.  The corresponding author must confirm that he/she had the final responsibility for the decision to submit and had full access to all the data involved in the study. 

Duties of Editors

1. The editors are responsible for reviewing the format, completeness, and quality of articles before beginning the peer reviewer evaluation process for publication in the journal they are responsible for.
2. The editor will not disclose any information during the article evaluation period and publication of that journal to any person unrelated, whether it is the author's information or the article reviewer.
3. The editors will be the preliminary assessors in the decision to select articles for the publishing process and consider publishing articles that have passed the article evaluation process by considering the results of the peer reviewer's assessment of importance, newness, clarity, and the consistency of the content and the policy of the journal is important.
4. The editors will not publish articles that have been published elsewhere, either in the form of journals or articles, after their presentation at a full academic conference (Proceedings).
5. The editors will not reject the publication of articles that do not meet the requirements until there is evidence to prove those suspicions.
6. The editors will not have any conflicts of interest with the authors, the evaluators, and the management team.
7. The editors check for plagiarism in their articles using a reliable program. If there is clear evidence or confirmation that the work of others has been plagiarized, the editor will contact the main author for clarification, and if there is no clarification on an academic basis, the editor will refuse to publish the article.

 

2. Authors' Ethics

1. Authorship: All authors must have agreed to the submission and the order of their names on the title page. They must also have agreed that the corresponding author may act on their behalf throughout the editorial review and publication process.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts of research articles submitted to JELR must not have been published previously and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The author(s) must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the author(s) have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted and listed in the references. Any attempt at plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or citation manipulation will result in the rejection of the submitted manuscript.  JELR reserves the right to use plagiarism-detecting software to screen submitted papers.
3. Human Subjects: If the research work involves the use of human participants/volunteers, the author(s) should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that approval from an ethics committee was obtained for any experiments/clinical trials involving human subjects. Authors must state the approval code in the manuscript.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All funding sources must be disclosed in the acknowledgments, and any conflicts of interest must be stated. All submissions must include disclosure of any relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest. 

Duties of Authors

1. The article submission must be certified by the author as new work and has never been presented in a proceeding or published form anywhere else.
2. Articles submitted for publication, the authors must present reports of true information arising from research without distorting information or providing false information.
3. If someone else's work is used in the author's work, the author's work must be referenced and appear in the reference list at the end of the article.
4. Articles submitted for publication must follow the format specified in the recommendations of the original thesis submission of the journal; otherwise, the editors will not accept such articles.
5. An article whose author's name appears must be a person who takes part in the actual research, and the editors will consider the feasibility of the article.
6. The article must include the source of funding supporting this research in the acknowledgment (if any).
7. The authors must specify conflicts of interest (if any).

 

3. Reviewers' Ethics

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers help the editors decide whether to publish a submission and help the author or authors make the manuscript better.
Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to respect the confidentiality of the review process. They are prohibited from discussing any aspects of the evaluated study with other researchers until the article is released. A reviewer cannot quote or allude to unpublished information revealed in a manuscript under review without the express written consent of the author or authors, which can be acquired through the editorial team. Peer-reviewed concepts or data must be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit.
Standards of Objectivity: All manuscripts must be evaluated impartially, taking into account the reviewer's subject-matter competence. Review judgments shouldn't be based on subjective conclusions that lack supporting data.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The reviewers are not permitted to utilize any information they obtain throughout the peer review process for personal gain. The reviewers are unable to accept the review if they have a conflict of interest with the author or authors, companies, or organizations associated with the articles.

Duties of Reviewers

1.The reviewer will protect confidentiality during the evaluation period by not disclosing the article's and author's information to unaffiliated third parties.
2.The reviewer and the author must not have any conflicts of interest that would prevent the assessor from evaluating and offering recommendations independently, such as co-authorship.
3. The reviewer will judge articles in their area of expertise based on their substance, importance, recentness, coherence, and clarity rather than on subjective assessments devoid of technical specifics. Academic backing was one of the evaluation criteria for papers.
4. The reviewer can suggest important research findings that support the piece if the author does not cite the evaluation.
5. If the reviewer finds, with solid proof, that the work is plagiarized or similar to other people's work, they have the power to reject the publication and notify the editor.

 

Process for handling complaints against editors submitted to the Publication Ethics Committee
1. Complaints from authors, readers, or reviewers may be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee for consideration.
2. Complaints to journal editors must be made in writing directly to the editor. The first step is to make a written complaint directly to the journal editor. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, the complaint can be forwarded to the editor’s home committee or any reviewers.
3. Only complaints that have passed the journal's complaints process can be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee, and all relevant documentation must be attached.
4. The Publication Ethics Committee will accept complaints within 6 months after the journal has considered the complaint.
5. The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider complaints about the content of the editor’s decision to publish an article (but will consider the process) or comments about the content of the editorial.
6. The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider events that occurred before the publication of this ethical standard document.

Guidelines when a complaint is forwarded to the editorial board:
1. The complainant submits the complaint to the journal’s editorial staff.
2. The journal’s editorial staff will verify the complaint based on the following points: Then, forward it to the College's Research Ethics Committee or the accredited institution. 2.1 Complaint against a member of the journal's editorial board. 2.2 Complaint within the scope of the journal's editorial board. 2.3 Complaint that is not resolved after being forwarded to the journal for consideration according to the process. 3. The complainant must submit all relevant documents, including documents related to the complaint, to the journal that acknowledges the complaint, to reassure the journal's editorial board. 4. The chairman of the journal's ethics committee informs the journal's editor of the complaint forwarded to the ethics committee. 5. Various situations that may occur: The editor does not cooperate. In this case, the chairman of the journal's ethics committee will inform the complainant and the journal owner. The editor responds to the complaint with the following points:
5.1 The chairman of the journal's ethics committee and one representative nominated by a member of the Publication Ethics Committee Council jointly consider and decide that the journal has handled the complaint satisfactorily and has informed the complainant and the editor.
5.2 The chairman of the journal's ethics committee and one representative nominated by a member of the journal's ethics committee jointly decide that further investigation is necessary and have informed the complainant and the journal editor. And submit a report of the action to the relevant subcommittee of the journal's ethics committee. - The subcommittee that considers and decides on the complaint should consist of a chairperson and at least 3 members of the Publication Ethics Committee, of which 2 members must not be editors, and none of the members of the subcommittee are members of the same publishing house (or parent company) as the editor who is complained about.
6. If the chairperson is in the same publishing house (or parent company) as the editor who is complained about, the chairperson will appoint a vice-chairperson with appropriate qualifications to oversee the documents instead.
7. When a complaint is sent to the subcommittee, the subcommittee may:
7.1 Withdraw the complaint and inform the complainant and the editor of the reasons.
7.2 Conclude that it is a violation of the prescribed regulations.
8. When the subcommittee concludes that it is a violation of the prescribed regulations, it must submit a report to the Publication Ethics Committee, explaining the nature of the violation and providing recommendations on what to do. The journal ethics committee will consider the report, which may be revised. After that, it will inform the complainant, the editor, and the owner of the publishing house (journal) of the recommendations. Finally, these may include:

8.1 The editor shall apologize to the complainant for the complaint received.

8.2 The editor shall publish the statement received from the journal's Ethics Committee in his journal.

8.3 The journal shall make improvements to its procedures.

8.4 The editor shall resign from the Ethics Committee for some time or take any other action that the journal's Ethics Committee deems appropriate in the circumstances.

 

Appeal Procedure
The complainant may appeal against the recommendations of the journal's Ethics Committee by requesting the details of the contact persons from the Editorial Office and the journal's Ethics Committee.

Copyright and License
Authors retain copyright of their articles. All articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
This license permits sharing, copying, and redistributing the material in any medium or format for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is properly cited and not modified or adapted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

 

Guidelines on AI-Generated Content

JELR acknowledges the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate valuable information for articles submitted to the journal for prospective publication. The magazine does, however, recognize the need to ensure that AI-generated content is managed appropriately and morally.
This policy describes the journal's guidelines for using AI-generated content in published articles.
1. Definition of AI-generated content
For this policy, any content created or substantially modified by an AI system is referred to as AI-generated content. This includes both work created wholly by an AI system and content created by a human author that has undergone substantial AI system modification.
2. Principles
JELR will only publish AI-generated content that complies with the following rules:
* The AI system that produced the content cannot be recognized as one of the authors when it is submitted for potential publication.
* A detailed explanation of the AI system that produced the information must be included in the article.
* The human author of the article must be credited.
* AI-generated content ought to be original and plagiarism-free.
* AI-generated content must be reliable and accurate.
* The content produced by AI must not mislead or deceive readers.
3. Procedure
Authors who wish to submit articles with AI-generated content must provide JELR with the following information:
* A detailed description of the AI algorithm that generated the content.
* A copy of the original input data used to generate the content.
* A copy of the AI-generated content.
* A statement acknowledging the human author's contribution to the work.
JELR will evaluate the AI-generated content and decide if it is suitable for publication.
4. Enforcement
JELR reserves the right to reject or retract any article that does not comply with this policy.

 

Article Retraction Policy
The Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Retractions are issued in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines to ensure transparency, accountability, and trust.
1. Grounds for Retraction
Retractions will be issued when published findings are found to be unreliable due to:
1.1 Proven misconduct, plagiarism, or duplicate publication.
1.2 Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of results.
1.3 Copyright infringement or ethical breaches.
1.4 Failure to disclose significant conflicts of interest.
1.5 Absence of required institutional review board (IRB) approval for research involving human subjects or animals.
1.6 Fundamental errors in research design or methodology that undermine reproducibility and validity.
2. Retraction Procedure
2.1 Retractions may be initiated by the editor, editorial board, or publisher, sometimes following concerns raised by reviewers, authors, or readers.
2.2 Minor editorial errors will not result in retraction; instead, corrections or errata will be issued.
2.3 When a retraction is necessary, a formal Retraction Notice will be published in the journal, linked to the original article, and stating the specific reason for retraction.
3. Availability and Marking of Retracted Articles
3.1 Retracted articles will remain accessible online to preserve the scholarly record, but will be clearly marked as “Retracted” on every page.
3.2 The Retraction Notice will accompany the article and be freely accessible to readers.
3.3 The aim is to maintain openness and allow the academic community to understand the reason for the retraction.

 

Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy
Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR)
1. General Principles
The Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in academic publishing.
To ensure fairness in the editorial and peer review processes, all parties involved in the publication process — including authors, editors, and reviewers — are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest (COI) that may influence, or be perceived to influence, their work or judgment.
A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment regarding the validity or interpretation of research may be influenced by personal, financial, institutional, or other relationships.
2. Responsibilities of Authors
2.1 Authors must declare any financial, institutional, personal, or professional relationships that could be perceived as influencing their submitted work.
2.2 Authors are required to include a “Conflict of Interest Statement” in their manuscript, even if they have none to declare (e.g., “The authors declare no conflict of interest”).
2.3 Examples of COI for authors include: (1) Financial support, grants, or funding from organizations that may benefit from the results. (2) Employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria, or paid expert testimony. (3) Personal or professional relationships with individuals or institutions that may bias interpretation.
Failure to disclose relevant COIs may result in rejection, retraction, or further actions as deemed appropriate by the Editorial Board.
3. Responsibilities of Editors
3.1 Editors must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript if there is any potential conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or content of the manuscript.
3.2 Editors should avoid making editorial decisions in cases where: (1) They have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors. (2) They are affiliated with the same institution as the authors. (3) They have personal or financial relationships that may bias their judgment.
3.3 If such a conflict exists, the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified editor.
3.4 Editors must remain impartial and act only in the best interest of maintaining the academic integrity of the journal.
4. Responsibilities of Reviewers
4.1 Reviewers are expected to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review.
4.2 Reviewers should decline review invitations if: (1) They have a personal or professional relationship with the authors. (2) They have a financial or competitive interest in the outcome of the study. (3) They cannot provide an objective, fair, and confidential evaluation.
4.3 If reviewers discover a potential conflict of interest after accepting the assignment, they must notify the editorial office immediately and withdraw from the review process.
5. Editorial Office Actions
5.1 The Editorial Board will assess disclosed conflicts of interest and decide whether they require additional actions (e.g., editorial reassignment, reviewer replacement, disclosure in publication).
5.1 COI disclosures will be published in the final article to ensure full transparency to readers.
5.3 In cases of undisclosed COI discovered post-publication, the Editorial Board may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction following COPE guidelines.
6. Statement of Compliance
This COI policy is aligned with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows international standards of ethical publishing.

 

COPE Statement
Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR)
The Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is firmly committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in academic publishing. To achieve this, the journal fully endorses and adheres to the principles, guidelines, and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Alignment with COPE Principles
JELR follows the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
All stakeholders — including authors, editors, and reviewers — are expected to act in accordance with these ethical standards.
2. Responsibilities of Authors
2.1 Authors must ensure that their submissions are original, accurate, and free from plagiarism or unethical practices.
2.2 Duplicate or redundant publication, falsification of data, inappropriate authorship credit, and undisclosed conflicts of interest are strictly prohibited.
2.3 Authors are required to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest and confirm compliance with ethical approval requirements for research involving human participants or animals.
3. Responsibilities of Editors
3.1 Editors must maintain editorial independence and impartiality throughout the review and publication process.
3.2 They are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit, without regard to the authors’ gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships.
3.3 Editors must handle all allegations of misconduct following COPE Flowcharts and ensure that corrective actions (e.g., corrections, retractions, expressions of concern) are taken when necessary.
4. Responsibilities of Reviewers
4.1 Reviewers must provide objective, fair, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts.
4.2 They must decline assignments if conflicts of interest exist and are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
4.3 Reviewers should identify ethical concerns (such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or undisclosed COIs) and report them to the editorial office.
5. Handling Misconduct
5.1 JELR addresses all cases of alleged or proven research and publication misconduct — including plagiarism, data falsification, authorship disputes, duplicate submissions, and unethical research practices — in strict accordance with COPE Flowcharts and Guidelines.
5.2 Actions may include rejection of the manuscript, retraction of published articles, notification of institutions, and blacklisting of offending authors or reviewers.
6. Transparency and Accountability
6.1 JELR ensures transparency in the peer review process, fairness in editorial decisions, and accountability in publishing practices.
6.2 COI statements, funding sources, and ethical approvals (where applicable) will be disclosed in published articles.
6.3 The journal is dedicated to providing clear corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern whenever errors or ethical breaches are identified.
7. Commitment to COPE
By adopting and adhering to COPE’s standards, the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) affirms its commitment to maintaining the highest level of academic integrity and ethical publishing practices, ensuring trust among authors, reviewers, editors, and readers worldwide.
For more information about COPE and its guidelines, please visit: https://publicationethics.org.

Research Misconduct and Plagiarism Policy
Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR)
The Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity. Any form of research misconduct is strictly prohibited and will be dealt with according to international publishing ethics standards, including COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
1. Definition of Misconduct
Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
1.1 Plagiarism: Copying or closely paraphrasing another’s work without proper attribution.
1.2 Self-plagiarism (redundant publication): Republishing the same content in multiple outlets without disclosure.
1.3 Data fabrication or falsification: Inventing or altering data, methods, or results.
1.4 Improper authorship: Excluding legitimate contributors, including “guest” or “gift” authorship, or disputes regarding contribution.
1.5 Ethics violations: Failure to obtain appropriate approvals for studies involving human participants or animals.
1.6 Conflicts of interest: Failure to disclose financial or personal interests that may influence interpretation.
2. Plagiarism Screening
2.1 All submitted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism detection using reliable software before peer review.
2.2 A similarity index exceeding 20% (excluding references, tables, and standard text) may lead to rejection or a request for revision.
2.3 Authors may be required to provide explanations or evidence of originality.
3. Investigating Misconduct
3.1 Allegations of misconduct may be raised by editors, reviewers, or readers.
3.2 The Editorial Board will conduct an initial assessment and may contact the authors for clarification.
3.3 If necessary, the case will be referred to the authors’ institution or funding body for further investigation.
4. Corrective Actions
Depending on the severity of the misconduct, the Editorial Board may take the following actions:
4.1 Reject the manuscript before publication.
4.2 Request corrections or clarifications for minor issues.
4.3 Issue a retraction of a published article, with a formal notice stating the reason.
4.4 Publish an expression of concern when investigation is ongoing.
4.5 Ban offending authors from submitting to JELR for a specified period.
4.6 Notify relevant institutions, funders, or authorities in serious cases.
5. Appeals
5.1 Authors may appeal editorial decisions related to misconduct by submitting a written explanation.
5.2 Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if appropriate, by external advisors following COPE procedures.