01 Commitment and scope

This policy sets expectations for everyone participating in the publication of Journal of Educational Innovation in Science and Technology: authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff and the publisher. It applies to submissions, published work and concerns raised after publication. Its purpose is to support trustworthy scholarship and fair editorial treatment.

The journal uses COPE Core Practices as a framework for editorial assessment. A reference to COPE is not a statement of membership, certification or endorsement. Discipline-specific requirements and the journal’s more detailed policies must also be consulted.

02 Authors: accurate and accountable reporting

• Describe what was actually done, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and report important limitations.
• Check the accuracy of citations, quotations, calculations, tables and images before submission. Do not invent evidence or conceal changes that affect interpretation.
• Disclose related publications, preprints and overlapping submissions to the editor. Do not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it is under consideration here.
• Obtain permission for third-party material where needed. Notify the editor when a significant error is found, including after publication, and cooperate in resolving it.

03 Authorship and contributions

The author list must represent genuine scholarly contributions. Each author must approve the manuscript and accept responsibility for their contribution and for helping resolve questions about the work. Other assistance should be acknowledged with permission. Administrative position, funding alone or an agreement to purchase authorship does not establish authorship.

The corresponding author coordinates communication, but does not replace the responsibilities of other authors. Requests to add, remove or reorder names require reasons and documented agreement from affected contributors. Unresolved disputes may pause processing and require institutional assessment; editors do not adjudicate employment or ownership disputes.

04 Editors: independent decisions

Editors assess relevance, originality, soundness and ethical acceptability. Decisions must be reasoned and free from discrimination, personal advantage and commercial pressure. Payment, prestige or institutional relationships must not purchase acceptance.

The handling editor selects appropriate expertise, considers reviewer reports and author responses, and explains the decision. An editor with a relevant conflict must transfer handling to an independent editor. Editorial-board submissions and special issues require the same safeguards as other submissions. Confidential records must be accessible only to people with a legitimate role.

05 Reviewers: constructive and confidential assessment

Before accepting, reviewers should consider expertise, availability and competing interests. A report should identify strengths, limitations and necessary changes with reasons. It should distinguish essential corrections from optional suggestions. Personal attacks and requests for irrelevant citations are unacceptable.

Reviewers must not share or use unpublished work for their own benefit. They should alert the editor privately to credible integrity concerns, without conducting an unauthorized investigation or contacting authors independently. If circumstances prevent a responsible review, they should inform the editor.

06 Publisher and journal management

The publisher supports editorial independence, appropriate training, secure records and continuity planning. Responsibilities for complaints, technical operations and editorial decisions should be clearly allocated. Published information about charges, access, ownership and preservation must match actual arrangements.

Commercial or institutional interests must be separated from decisions on individual manuscripts. The publisher assists with necessary notices and institutional correspondence without suppressing findings to protect reputation. Staff should communicate professionally and avoid retaliation against people who raise concerns in good faith.

07 Competing interests and funding

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgment. Relevant interests may be financial, professional or personal. Disclosure allows assessment; it does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

Authors identify funding and material support, including the funder’s involvement in the research and publication decision. Editors decide whether disclosure, independent handling or recusal is needed. Interests discovered later should be reported so that the record and handling arrangements can be corrected where necessary.

08 Research ethics, consent and privacy

Where relevant, manuscripts must describe ethics approval, the approving body and consent procedures, or explain a justified exemption. Research involving people, sensitive records, vulnerable groups or animals requires safeguards appropriate to the discipline and applicable requirements. Authors must not invent an approval or obtain it retrospectively and present it as prior approval.

Consent to participate is not necessarily consent to publish identifiable information. Minimize identifying details and explain any restriction on disclosure. Editors may request supporting documentation through a confidential channel rather than requiring sensitive material to be made public.

09 Data, methods and reproducibility

Provide enough methodological detail for readers to evaluate the findings. State where supporting data, code or materials can be accessed, or why access is restricted. Confidentiality, consent and legitimate rights take precedence over unrestricted sharing.

Retain relevant research records and respond to reasonable requests for clarification. Describe exclusions, transformations and image adjustments that matter to interpretation. For registered studies or discipline-specific reporting requirements, supply the relevant registration and reporting information. An unavailable dataset must not be described as openly accessible.

10 Originality, citations and AI

Attribute borrowed words, ideas and materials, including substantial reuse of earlier work. Editorial assessment considers the context of overlap; a similarity score alone neither proves nor excludes plagiarism. References should support the manuscript, not manipulate metrics.

Human authors remain responsible when using AI assistance. Disclose substantive use according to the journal’s AI policy and verify outputs against evidence. AI must not fabricate sources or research observations. Editors and reviewers must protect confidential manuscripts and must not delegate scholarly judgment to an automated system.

11 Concerns, complaints and fair assessment

A report should identify the manuscript or article, explain the concern and provide available evidence. Confidential or anonymous reports are assessed on their substance. Allegations are not treated as established misconduct.

1. The editorial office records the concern and identifies an impartial person to assess it.
2. Relevant parties are invited to respond, and clarification or supporting records may be requested.
3. Where the question exceeds editorial authority, appropriate institutions or specialists may be consulted with proportionate disclosure.
4. The editor documents the assessment and communicates an appropriate outcome. A pending investigation is not evidence of guilt.

An appeal should identify a factual or procedural error, rather than only disagreement with a decision. Complaints about the handling editor must be referred to an independent contact through the journal’s complaints procedure. Delays and the next steps should be communicated without promising a fixed outcome.

12 Discussion and changes after publication

Readers may send substantive comments or evidence of error to the editorial office. Authors should be given an opportunity to respond where appropriate. Scientific disagreement alone is not a reason to remove a paper.

A correction addresses a material error when the work remains reliable. Serious unreliability may require retraction; unresolved substantial concerns may justify an expression of concern. Notices should explain the reason, identify the affected work and link to its record. Withdrawal before publication is distinct from retraction. Removal of published content is exceptional; changes must not silently rewrite the scholarly record.

13 Preprints, overlap and prior dissemination

Authors must disclose preprints, conference versions, repository copies and closely related manuscripts at submission. Prior dissemination is assessed under the journal’s stated policy and must not be concealed. Editors consider whether overlap is legitimate development, redundant publication or copyright infringement, and may request the related material. A preprint must not be presented as the final version of record.

14 Images, data and research records

Images and data must represent the underlying observations accurately. Adjustments applied to the whole image may be acceptable when they do not obscure, remove, move or introduce material features; selective manipulation and fabricated data are prohibited. Authors retain original files and relevant records and provide them confidentially when a documented integrity concern requires assessment. Identifiable material remains subject to consent, privacy and legal restrictions.

15 Special issues and editorial-board submissions

Special issues, guest-edited collections and submissions from editors or board members follow the same quality and ethics requirements as other content. An independent editor must handle a manuscript where a journal editor has a conflict, and the published article should disclose the relevant handling arrangement when appropriate. Guest editors work under journal oversight; sponsorship, invitation or board status does not guarantee acceptance.

16 Business model, advertising and direct marketing

The journal separates editorial decisions from author fees, sponsorship, advertising and other revenue. Author charges and waivers are disclosed before submission; revenue sources must not purchase favourable editorial outcomes. Advertising, if accepted, must be identifiable and selected independently of individual editorial decisions. Direct marketing must be accurate, targeted and unobtrusive, and must not make misleading claims about indexing, metrics, review speed or guaranteed publication.

17 Journal-specific provisions — retained content

JEIST is committed to the integrity of scholarly publishing and follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics. Ethical responsibilities apply to authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance to the journal's scope, originality, clarity, and ethical compliance, without discrimination based on nationality, institution, gender, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.

Authors must report research honestly and accountably; retain data appropriately; obtain ethics approval and participant consent where required; protect confidentiality; disclose funding and competing interests; and include only individuals who meet authorship criteria. All authors must approve the manuscript and the order of names. Authorship changes after submission require a written explanation and the agreement of all parties.

Editors preserve confidentiality, manage competing interests, select competent reviewers, and ensure that decisions are not influenced by commercial or personal interests. Reviewers preserve confidentiality, assess submissions objectively, disclose competing interests, and alert the editor to overlap, errors, or suspected misconduct.

Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, redundant publication, citation or peer-review manipulation, and other misconduct are assessed proportionately. The journal may request data or explanations, contact institutions, suspend processing, reject a manuscript, or publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. Published content is not removed except for legal reasons, safety risks, serious privacy breaches, or other exceptional circumstances.