Code Of Ethics

The Journal of Educational Paradigms adheres to the following code of ethics for the authors, reviewers, advisory and editorial board members.

CODE OF ETHICS FOR AUTHORS

Authorship: Include only contributing author(s) in an appropriate order, all the acknowledgments should be disclosed, approval from all authors is required before submitting a manuscript to Journal of Educational Paradigms.

Plagiarism*: Author(s) need to ensure all the materials including self should be referred properly, prior permissions have been obtained when using third-party material, any help in data analysis or methods should be acknowledged properly.

Dataset: Author(s) need to acknowledge any dataset collected by someone else, check the authenticity and reliability of the dataset, prior permissions should be obtained by the author(s) before using it for the manuscript(s).

Interests: All the information regarding funding should be disclosed, funding can be financial or non-financial if a manuscript is extracted from any project or a part of the dissertation should be disclosed in the cover letter.

Duplicate Submissions: Author(s) must submit the manuscript(s) to one journal at a time.

* Editor of Journal of Educational Paradigms will response to the case of Plagiarism as follows as per the ethical guidelines of COPE.

Extent of Plagiarism	Journal response could be
Major plagiarism could be defined as, Any case involving unattributed copying of another person’s data/findings, or resubmission of an entire publication under another author’s name (either in the original language or in translation), or verbatim copying of >100 words of original material in the absence of any citation to the source material, or unattributed use of original, published academic work, such as the structure, argument or hypothesis/idea of another person or group where this is a major part of the new publication and there is evidence that it was not developed independently.	Major plagiarism in submitted article – The Journal of Educational Paradigms will present findings to all authors and ask them to respond; if all or only some of them are responsible for the plagiarised sections, decide if any authors were unaware of the plagiarism and, if so, whether they are in any way responsible for the behavior of the other authors (eg in a supervisory capacity); explain that plagiarism is unacceptable and that JEP will inform their institutions and relevant higher education commission of authors consider were directly involved with or should take responsibility for, the plagiarism. Major plagiarism in the published article – as for the submitted article, then retract the article and JEP will inform their institutions and relevant higher education commission of authors consider were directly involved with or should take responsibility for, the plagiarism. Use of images without acknowledgment of the source – if the image contains data from another person’s research (eg a graph), and this is shown as if it were the work of the copyist, this should be treated as data copying (ie major plagiarism).
Minor plagiarism could be defined as: Verbatim copying of <100 words without indicating that these are a direct quotation from an original work (whether or not the source is cited) unless the text is accepted as widely used or standardized (eg the description of a standard technique). Close copying (not quite verbatim, but changed only slightly from the original) of significant sections (eg >100 words) from another work (whether or not that work is cited)	Minor plagiarism in the submitted article – editor’s office will write to author and request reworking or (if an article is being rejected) point out that minor plagiarism has been detected and advising the authors that this should be corrected before resubmission. Minor plagiarism in the published article – Editorial office will contact the author and discuss findings, issue a correction and apology.

Extent of Plagiarism

Journal response could be

Major plagiarism could be defined as, Any case involving

unattributed copying of another person’s data/findings, or
resubmission of an entire publication under another author’s name (either in the original language or in translation), or
verbatim copying of >100 words of original material in the absence of any citation to the source material, or
unattributed use of original, published academic work, such as the structure, argument or hypothesis/idea of another person or group where this is a major part of the new publication and there is evidence that it was not developed independently.

Major plagiarism in submitted article – The Journal of Educational Paradigms will present findings to all authors and ask them to respond; if all or only some of them are responsible for the plagiarised sections, decide if any authors were unaware of the plagiarism and, if so, whether they are in any way responsible for the behavior of the other authors (eg in a supervisory capacity); explain that plagiarism is unacceptable and that JEP will inform their institutions and relevant higher education commission of authors consider were directly involved with or should take responsibility for, the plagiarism.

Major plagiarism in the published article – as for the submitted article, then retract the article and JEP will inform their institutions and relevant higher education commission of authors consider were directly involved with or should take responsibility for, the plagiarism.

Use of images without acknowledgment of the source – if the image contains data from another person’s research (eg a graph), and this is shown as if it were the work of the copyist, this should be treated as data copying (ie major plagiarism).

Minor plagiarism could be defined as:

Verbatim copying of <100 words without indicating that these are a direct quotation from an original work (whether or not the source is cited) unless the text is accepted as widely used or standardized (eg the description of a standard technique).
Close copying (not quite verbatim, but changed only slightly from the original) of significant sections (eg >100 words) from another work (whether or not that work is cited)

Minor plagiarism in the submitted article – editor’s office will write to author and request reworking or (if an article is being rejected) point out that minor plagiarism has been detected and advising the authors that this should be corrected before resubmission.

Minor plagiarism in the published article – Editorial office will contact the author and discuss findings, issue a correction and apology.

CODE OF ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS

Instructions to authors: Before starting the peer-review reviewer needs to read instructions to authors.

Overview: Reviewer needs to provide his/her expert opinion on a title, abstract, overview of the structure, and novelty.

Critical discussion: Reviewer needs to provide a detailed critical discussion on the review of literature and methods and descriptive summary.

Arguments: Reviewers should build arguments on methods and materials and findings.

Suggestions: Reviewers should provide suggestions to improve the standards of the manuscript.

Decision: Reviewers need to provide a clear decision about the acceptance and rejection of the manuscript(s).

CODE OF ETHICS FOR EDITOR

Authors and Readers

The editor of JEP ensure that all published manuscripts and reviews have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
The editorial office of JEP adopts the processes that encourage accuracy, completeness, and clarity of research reporting including technical.
The JEP adopts authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors).
The editorial office of JEP ensure readers provided with appropriate assistance to ensure submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
The editorial of JEP should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
The editorial of JEP should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.

Reviewers Board

The editorial office of JEP provides guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance will be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
The editorial office ensures reviewers must disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
The editorial office JEP has systems that ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
The editorial office of JEP encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).
The editorial office of JEP encourages reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
The editorial office of JEP uses a wide range of sources including publons peer-review connect (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases).
The editorial office of JEP acts accordingly if any suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
The editorial office JEP not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
The editorial office of JEP follows the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

Advisory/ Editorial Board

The editorial office of JEP provides guidelines on everything that is expected of them to new editorial board members and keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
The editorial office of JEP ensures policies must be in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal.
The editorial office of JEP provides clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
Ambassadors for the journal
Supporting and promoting the journal

seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions

accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews, and commentaries
consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.

Editor of The Journal of Educational Paradigms follows the code of conduct given by; COPE

“The Academy of Research” adhere and follow the ethical codes and guidelines for the publishers given by; COPE