International Journal of
Information and Education Technology

IJIET is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical publishing practices. We adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines while implementing additional measures to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in scholarly communication. 
 
Core Principles
 
1. Integrity in Authorship
Authorship must reflect substantial contributions to the research. "Ghost," "gift," or honorary authorship is prohibited.  
1.1 Authorship Criteria
To qualify as an author, individuals must meet all four criteria (based on ICMJE guidelines):

• Significant contribution to study design, data collection/analysis, or interpretation.

• Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for intellectual content.

• Approval of the final version to be published.

• Accountability for the work’s accuracy and integrity.

1.2 Non-Author Contributors:

• Those who do not meet all criteria (e.g., technical support, funding acquisition) should be listed in acknowledgments with their roles specified.

1.3 Authorship Changes
IJIET permits authorship changes only under exceptional circumstances (e.g., valid disputes, omissions):
a. Pre-Publication Changes:

• All authors must agree in writing to add/remove/reorder authors.

• The submitting author must provide a justification (e.g., omitted contributor, withdrawal of consent).

b. Post-Publication Changes:

• Requires a formal request signed by all original authors.

• If consensus is impossible (e.g., disputed contributions), the journal may:

• Investigate via institutional mediation.

• Issue a correction notice detailing the change.

• Retraction may occur if authorship fraud is confirmed.

 
2. Ethical Research Involving Human Participants

• Informed Consent:

• Participants (students, teachers, etc.) must provide written consent, with special attention to minors (parental/guardian consent required).

• For online learning studies, consent forms must clarify data collection (e.g., log files, video recordings).

• Privacy & Data Security:

• EdTech studies must anonymize learner data (e.g., LMS logs, discussion forums) or obtain explicit permission for identifiable use.

• Compliance with GDPR, FERPA, or regional data protection laws must be stated.

• Ethical Approval:

• Research in formal educational settings (schools, universities) requires IRB approval or institutional consent.

• For industry-partnered studies (e.g., with EdTech companies), conflicts of interest must be declared.

 
3. Transparent Peer Review

• We employ a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality, but authors may opt for open peer review post-acceptance. 

• Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and provide **constructive, unbiased feedback**. 

• Reviewers who engage in unethical behavior (e.g., stealing ideas, undue delays) will be **blacklisted**. 

 
4. Editorial Independence & Accountability

• Editors evaluate submissions based on **scholarly merit**, free from discrimination or external influence. 

• Editors and editorial staff must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist. 

• Appeals against editorial decisions are permitted, with a formal reassessment process. 

 
5. Research Misconduct: Definition, Prevention, and Handling
5.1 Definition of Research Misconduct 
IJIET defines research misconduct as any action that compromises the integrity of scholarly work, including but not limited to: 

• Plagiarism: Unauthorized use of others' work (text, data, or ideas) without proper attribution. 

• Data Fabrication/Falsification: Inventing or manipulating research data to misrepresent findings. 

• Duplicate Submission/Publication: Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously or republishing previously published work without disclosure. 

• Citation Manipulation: Excessive self-citation or coercive citation to inflate impact. 

• Authorship Misconduct: Including non-contributing authors ("gift authorship") or excluding deserving contributors ("ghost authorship"). 

• AI-Assisted Misconduct: Using AI tools to generate fraudulent data, fake peer reviews, or undisclosed synthetic content. 

5.2 Preventive Measures
To minimize misconduct risks, IJIET implements: 

• Pre-Screening: All submissions undergo automated plagiarism detection (e.g., Turnitin) and manual checks for data anomalies. 

• Author Declarations: Authors must certify originality, disclose AI use, and confirm compliance with ethical guidelines. 

• Open Data Policy: Encourages sharing raw data (where ethical) to verify reproducibility. 

 
5.3 Handling Allegations of Misconduct
a. Initial Assessment: 

• The editorial team investigates allegations, requesting evidence (e.g., original data, IRB approvals). 

• Confidentiality is maintained to protect whistleblowers and accused parties. 

b. COPE-Based Procedures: 

• Minor Issues (e.g., citation errors): Corrections via an *erratum*. 

• Severe Misconduct (e.g., fraud, plagiarism): Immediate manuscript retraction with a public notice detailing the reason. 

• Institutional Involvement: For unresolved cases, the journal collaborates with the authors’ institutions or ethics boards. 

c. Sanctions: 

• Authors: Blacklisting for repeated violations (1–5 years, depending on severity). 

• Reviewers/Editors: Removal from roles for unethical behavior (e.g., bias, idea theft). 

d. Transparency: 

• Retracted papers remain online with a watermarked "Retracted" label and linked explanation. 

• Annual summaries of misconduct cases (anonymized) are published to uphold accountability. 

5.4 EdTech-Specific Misconduct Policies

• AI-Generated Content: Undisclosed use of LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT) to write manuscripts or fabricate data results in retraction. 

• Learner Data Exploitation: Studies violating privacy (e.g., non-consensual data mining from EdTech platforms) are rejected. 

• Algorithmic Bias Concealment: Failure to address biases in AI-driven EdTech tools may lead to post-publication corrections. 

 
6 Appeals & Complaints Policy
 
IJIET maintains a formal procedure to address:
6.1 Editorial Decision Appeals

• Authors may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office within 30 days

• Must include detailed justification for reconsideration

• Initial review by handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief

6.2 Procedural Complaints

• Covers issues such as processing delays

• Should be directed to the journal's publishing contact

6.3 Ethics Concerns

• Includes allegations of misconduct

• Will be investigated following COPE guidelines

All cases will receive prompt attention. For complaints involving Editors-in-Chief, please contact editor@ijiet.org.
The journal reserves the right to escalate serious matters to institutional authorities when appropriate. All communications will be handled confidentially.
Note: Frivolous or malicious complaints will not be entertained.