The publication ethics policy of the Student Journal of Community Education (SJCE) is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and best practices for journal editors. SJCE is committed to maintaining academic integrity, transparency, fairness, confidentiality, and accountability throughout the submission, peer review, and publication processes.

All authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties involved in the publication process are expected to adhere to these ethical principles to ensure the credibility and integrity of scholarly publications.

Policy Navigation

The following policies provide further information on SJCE's publication ethics and research integrity procedures:

1. Allegations of Research Misconduct
2. Conflict of Interest
3. Post-Publication Discussion
4. Corrections and Retractions

1. Duties of Authors

1.1. Reporting Standards

Authors must present an accurate account of their original research and an objective discussion of its significance. Research findings must be reported honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data. Manuscripts should contain sufficient detail and references to enable readers to understand the research and, where applicable, reproduce the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Authors must follow the journal's submission guidelines.

1.2. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts represent original work. Relevant previous research and publications, including the authors' own work, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Direct quotations must be clearly identified and appropriately cited. Plagiarism and the inappropriate reuse of previously published material are unacceptable.

1.3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal unless an authorized publication arrangement has been agreed upon by the relevant editors. Authors should avoid redundant publication or the publication of substantially overlapping manuscripts without appropriate disclosure. Multiple publications arising from a single research project must be clearly identified where relevant, and related publications must be properly cited.

1.4. Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must acknowledge all relevant sources of data and information used in their research. Publications that have significantly influenced the reported work must be appropriately cited. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others is essential to maintaining academic integrity.

1.5. Authorship of the Manuscript

Authorship must accurately reflect substantial scholarly contributions to the conception or design of the research, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or development of the manuscript. Individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions should be appropriately recognized as authors, while other contributors should be acknowledged where appropriate.

All listed authors must approve the final manuscript before submission and agree to be accountable for the integrity of their contributions. The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating communication with the editorial office and confirming that all authors have approved the submitted manuscript.

1.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence the research, its interpretation, or the publication process. All relevant sources of financial support must also be disclosed. If no relevant conflict exists, authors should explicitly state that there is no conflict of interest to declare.

1.7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted or published manuscript, they must promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate in assessing the issue. Authors are expected to assist the journal in issuing an appropriate correction or retraction when warranted.

1.8. Research Involving Hazards or Human and Animal Subjects

Authors must clearly identify any unusual hazards associated with chemicals, procedures, equipment, or other research activities. Research involving human participants or animals must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional requirements. Where required, authors must provide information regarding ethical approval, informed consent, and consent for publication.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication Decisions

Editors are responsible for making publication decisions based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and significance of submitted manuscripts, together with the results of peer review and the journal's editorial policies. Decisions must comply with applicable legal and ethical requirements, including those concerning plagiarism and copyright infringement.

Editors are accountable for the material they publish and must take appropriate measures to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

2.2. Review of Manuscripts

Editors must ensure that submitted manuscripts receive an initial assessment for relevance, originality, and compliance with the journal's requirements. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation must undergo a fair and appropriate peer review process.

Reviewers should be selected based on their expertise and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest. The journal must provide clear information about its peer review process and identify the types of content subject to peer review.

2.3. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editors must evaluate manuscripts objectively and without discrimination based on authors' gender, race, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit and the journal's stated scope and policies. Editors must exercise editorial independence and avoid inappropriate influence from personal, institutional, commercial, or other external interests.

2.4. Confidentiality

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related communications. Manuscript information must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals. Editors must also consider applicable data protection requirements, participant confidentiality, and the need for informed consent or consent for publication where relevant.

2.5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and must not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts in which they have a conflict that could compromise impartiality. Appropriate alternative editorial arrangements should be made where necessary.

Editors must not use unpublished information or ideas obtained through manuscript handling for personal research or advantage without the author's written permission.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and information obtained during peer review as confidential. Such information must not be shared with or discussed with unauthorized individuals unless expressly permitted by the editor.

3.2. Acknowledgment of Sources and Research Integrity

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors and recommend appropriate references where necessary. They should notify the editor of substantial similarities with other publications, suspected plagiarism, possible research misconduct, or other ethical concerns.

Reviewers must communicate such concerns confidentially to the editor and must not conduct independent investigations unless requested by the journal.

3.3. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively, constructively, and with clear supporting arguments. Reviewers should provide feedback that helps authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscripts. They should distinguish between additional investigations that are essential to support the claims and those that would merely extend the work.

3.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from financial, professional, personal, competitive, or collaborative relationships. Reviewers should decline assignments when such conflicts could compromise their impartiality.

Privileged information or ideas obtained during peer review must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers who identify a potential conflict because they recognize an author's identity in a double-blind review process should inform the editor.

3.5. Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can reasonably complete them within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer cannot complete a review on time, they must promptly inform the editor so that an extension or alternative reviewer can be arranged.