Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies is a scientific journal covering the field of education, which is not only the oldest pedagogical journal in Slovenia, but also the journal with the longest scientific journal publication tradition in Slovenia (since 1880). In reviewing and publishing articles, we are committed to upholding the highest publishing and academic ethical standards. Everybody involved in the publishing process – authors, persons, members board members – actively strive for the highest ethical and professional standards.
As an eminent Slovenian scientific journal in the field of education the Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies is increasingly becoming part of international academic environments and it is thus also committed to following international publishing and academic ethical standards. This statement was, therefore, developed both on the basis of our own academic tradition of scientific publishing and on the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
General duties and responsibilities of the editor-in-chief and members board members
The editor-in-chief and members board members should take all reasonable steps to encourage the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that sections within journals will have different aims and standards. They strive to improve the journal, and meet the needs of readers and authors.
Editorial board members act as ambassadors for the journal, supporting and promoting it. They seek the best authors and actively encourage submissions. They review submissions to the journal, attend members meetings, and accept commissions to write memberss, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area.
Editors and members board members champion the freedom of expression and maintain the integrity of the academic record. Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
The editor-in-chief accepts or rejects articles based on reviews, and the final decision on publishing or rejecting an article is made by the members board.
The editor-in-chief ensures that appropriate reviewers are selected. All articles are double blind reviewed. As a rule, the reviewers are members of the members board, including the members of the extended members board. If necessary, the editor may suggest external experts as reviewers.
The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. Editors and members board members should not discriminate on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
Cogent criticism of published work should be published unless the editor-in-chief or/and members board members have convincing reasons why they cannot be. The authors of the criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
Editors and members board should ensure that research material they publish confirms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information. The editor and members board members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers and the publisher if they have legitimate reasons for it.
Editors and members board preserve the anonymity of reviewers and authors. If the editor or an members board member has conflicts of interest with any author resulting from their work, they should not review or be considered for reviewing manuscripts.
The editor-in-chief should respond promptly to complaints. The editor is guided by the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship. A dissatisfied complainant can take the complaint further to the members board.
Editors should preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
General duties and responsibilities of authors
The data on which articles are based should be accurate. They should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to cite them. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are not acceptable.
During the reviewing process the thematic editor or the editor-in-chief may ask authors to submit their data sources for inspection and to enable a wider public access to the data if possible.
The author should participate in the reviewing process and follow the reviewers’ and the editor’s suggestions for improvement. The author should justify any refusal to follow the suggestions.
Authors should ensure that the manuscript they submit is entirely original, and that they cite and quote the work of others appropriately. The publication of certain types of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is acceptable if there are sound reasons for it. The editor must agree to such a reprint, which must also be adequately identified as such.
Plagiarism has many forms, from presenting somebody else’s articles as one’s own to copying or paraphrasing longer parts of articles by other authors without appropriate citation or quotation, to appropriating others’ research findings as one’s own. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.
Authors should also cite all the publications that have been influential in their work. Authors must not use the information that they acquire during confidential work, for instance when reviewing other authors’ manuscripts or any other unpublished works, without the authors’ express written permission.
Authorship is limited to those who have made significant contributions to article. If others have participated in the research project in certain significant aspects, the author should acknowledge them or list them as collaborators. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors must see to all the ethical standards of the research study whose findings they present in the article. All authors should disclose any financial or other substantial conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be fully disclosed.
If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor and to cooperate with her/him to retract or correct the article. If the editor learns that a published work contains a significant error, it is the author’s obligation to retract or correct the article or to demonstrate to the editor that the original article was correct.
Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.
The author may decide against publishing his/her article until the reviewing process is completed. After that the author may suggest withdrawing the article if he/she discovers a significant error which has an important impact on the scientific credibility of the article. The suggestion is then considered by the editor together with the reviewers.
General duties and responsibilities of reviewers
Any invited reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review a manuscript or who knows that she/he will be unable to complete the review in time should notify the editor and resign from reviewing.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.
The reviewing process should be conducted objectively. Any personal criticism of the author(s) is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly and with arguments.
Reviewers should identify the relevant published works that the authors have not cited. Reviewers should also draw the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and any other article that they personally know.
Reviewers must keep confidential the privileged information or ideas obtained through the reviewing process and must not use them for personal advantage or research without the author’s express permission. If possible, reviewers should not consider assessing manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest.