Research and Publication Misconduct Policy

The Basic Education College Research Journal (BERJ) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity and publication ethics. The journal seeks to prevent, identify, and address research and publication misconduct in a fair, transparent, consistent, and proportionate manner.

This policy is informed by internationally recognized principles and practices in research and publication ethics, including the guidance and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), while taking into account applicable laws, institutional regulations, and relevant research-ethics requirements.

This policy applies to all stages of the publication process, including manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication activities.

1. Scope of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, any act or practice that compromises the integrity of research, the reliability of the scholarly record, or the fairness of the publication process.

Examples include:

Plagiarism.
Self-plagiarism or undisclosed substantial overlap with previously published work.
Fabrication of data, results, observations, or other research materials.
Falsification or inappropriate alteration of data, results, methods, or research records.
Unjustified manipulation of images, figures, tables, or other research materials.
Duplicate or redundant publication.
Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal.
Authorship manipulation or inappropriate attribution of authorship or contributions.
Gift, honorary, or guest authorship.
Ghost authorship or omission of legitimate contributors.
Manipulation of the peer-review process or reviewer identities.
Fabrication or manipulation of peer-review reports.
Citation manipulation or inappropriate citation practices.
Undisclosed or improperly managed conflicts of interest.
Unethical use of research participants, personal data, sensitive information, biological materials, or other research materials.
Breach of confidentiality involving manuscripts, peer-review materials, or unpublished research.
Misuse of generative artificial intelligence or other automated tools to fabricate or falsify data, results, references, citations, or evidence.
Any other practice that may mislead authors, reviewers, editors, readers, or the wider scholarly community.

This list is not exhaustive. The journal may consider any other conduct that raises a credible concern about the integrity of research or the reliability of the published record.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

The journal may use plagiarism-detection and text-similarity tools as part of its screening procedures.

A similarity percentage alone is not considered conclusive evidence of plagiarism or research misconduct. Similarity must be assessed in context, taking into account the nature and source of the overlap, quotations, references, standard terminology, descriptions of methods, commonly used scientific language, and other legitimate forms of textual similarity.

Where substantial or inappropriate overlap is identified, the journal may request clarification or supporting information from the authors and may examine the underlying sources before determining the appropriate course of action.

Depending on the nature, extent, timing, and seriousness of the matter, confirmed plagiarism or inappropriate overlap may result in:

Rejection of the manuscript before publication.
A request for correction, clarification, or amendment.
Correction of the published article.
Issuance of an Expression of Concern.
Retraction of the published article.
Or another appropriate editorial action.

3. Fabrication, Falsification, and Data Manipulation

The journal considers fabrication, falsification, and serious data manipulation to be major forms of research misconduct.

Examples include:

Inventing data, observations, participants, experiments, or results that did not occur.
Deliberately altering data or results in a misleading manner.
Selectively deleting or modifying relevant data without adequate justification in order to support a predetermined conclusion.
Manipulating images, figures, or other research materials in a manner that materially affects their interpretation.
Reporting computational, experimental, or observational results that were not actually obtained.

Where there are credible concerns, the journal may request original datasets, analytical files, source data, software, laboratory records, or other documentation needed to assess the integrity of the reported work.

4. Duplicate Publication and Simultaneous Submission

The journal does not accept the publication of the same work, or a substantially overlapping version of the same work, in more than one venue without appropriate disclosure and justification.

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.

Authors must disclose any previous publications, submitted manuscripts, or related works that substantially overlap with the manuscript under consideration.

The journal may take appropriate action when duplicate publication, redundant publication, inappropriate fragmentation of results, simultaneous submission, or undisclosed substantial overlap is identified.

5. Authorship and Contributions

Authorship must be based on genuine and substantial scholarly contributions to the work.

The journal does not accept:

Gift, honorary, or guest authorship.
Ghost authorship.
Addition of individuals who have not made a legitimate contribution.
Omission of individuals who have made a substantial contribution warranting authorship.
Changes to the author list or author order without the agreement of all affected authors.

All listed authors are responsible for approving the final version of the manuscript and for the integrity of the work within the scope of their respective contributions.

In cases of authorship disputes, the journal may request explanations from the authors and may refer the matter to the relevant institution or competent authority when the dispute cannot reasonably be resolved through the information available to the journal.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial-board members must disclose any financial, professional, personal, academic, institutional, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or editorial decision-making.

Reviewers and editors should decline participation where a significant conflict of interest could compromise their independence or objectivity.

Where an editor has a material conflict of interest, the journal will take appropriate measures to ensure that the manuscript is handled independently.

7. Integrity of the Peer-Review Process

The journal considers manipulation of the peer-review process to be a serious form of publication misconduct.

Examples include:

Providing false or misleading reviewer identities.
Creating or using fabricated reviewer accounts.
Submitting fabricated or manipulated peer-review reports.
Improperly influencing reviewers or editorial decisions.
Attempting to improperly reveal reviewer identities or author identities where the journal uses a blinded review process.
Using confidential manuscript or review information for unauthorized personal or professional purposes.

Where peer-review manipulation is suspected, the journal may suspend the editorial process, re-evaluate the review history, appoint independent reviewers, or take other appropriate action.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI

Authors must use artificial intelligence and generative AI tools responsibly and transparently.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate or falsify:

Data.
Results.
References.
Citations.
Evidence.
Scientific images or other research materials in a misleading manner.

Artificial intelligence systems are not considered authors and must not be listed as authors of a manuscript.

Authors should disclose substantive use of AI tools where such use has materially contributed to the preparation, analysis, coding, organization, interpretation, or other aspects of the scholarly work, in accordance with the journal's applicable AI policy.

Authors, editors, and reviewers must not use AI tools in a manner that compromises the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, personal information, or other protected material.

AI-detection tools or AI-generated-content scores, where used, are not by themselves considered conclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct.

9. Whistleblower and Anonymous Allegations

BERJ encourages the reporting of credible concerns regarding research or publication misconduct.

Concerns may be raised by:

Authors.
Reviewers.
Readers.
Editors.
Editorial-board members.
Researchers.
Institutional representatives.
Research-integrity or ethics officers.
Or any other third party with credible and relevant information.

Concerns may be submitted confidentially and, where appropriate, anonymously.

The journal will not reject a concern solely because the identity of the complainant or whistleblower is unknown. However, allegations should, where possible, include sufficiently specific information or supporting evidence to enable the journal to assess the concern and determine whether further action is warranted.

The identity of a whistleblower will be treated confidentially and will not be disclosed unnecessarily. Where anonymity is requested, the journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the whistleblower's identity, subject to applicable legal, institutional, and procedural requirements.

BERJ does not tolerate retaliation, intimidation, harassment, or inappropriate disclosure of the identity of a person who raises a good-faith concern about research or publication integrity.

Where a concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, an editorial-board member, or any other person who would normally be involved in handling the matter, appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure an independent assessment of the allegation and to avoid conflicts of interest.

The journal may request additional information, documentation, or evidence from the whistleblower or other relevant parties where necessary to assess the concern.

Depending on the nature of the allegation, the journal may seek clarification from the authors, examine relevant records or data, consult appropriate experts, contact the relevant institution, or refer the matter to another competent authority.

The journal will not permit the whistleblower mechanism to be used knowingly for malicious, knowingly false, or intentionally misleading allegations. Where there is clear evidence of deliberate misuse of the reporting mechanism, the journal may take appropriate action.

10. Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct

When the journal receives a credible allegation of research or publication misconduct, it will seek to follow a proportionate process appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the concern.

10.1 Initial Assessment

The journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

The nature of the allegation.
Whether the concern is sufficiently specific.
Whether supporting information or evidence is available.
Whether the matter falls within the journal's scope or responsibilities.
Whether further assessment or investigation is warranted.

A matter may be closed at this stage when the concern is clearly unsubstantiated, too vague to assess, or unsupported by credible information.

10.2 Request for Explanation

Where there is a reasonable basis for concern, the journal may request clarification or further information from the authors or other relevant parties.

A request for clarification does not, by itself, constitute a finding of misconduct.

10.3 Investigation

Where serious concerns remain after the initial assessment, the journal may undertake an appropriate editorial investigation.

This may include:

Examination of the manuscript and related materials.
Review of original data or research records.
Comparison with previously published work.
Verification of sources or references.
Review of peer-review records.
Consultation with relevant experts.
Communication with the relevant institution or competent authority where appropriate.

Where a formal institutional investigation is required or falls outside the journal's authority, BERJ may refer the matter to the relevant institution or competent body.

10.4 Editorial Action

Following assessment of the available evidence, the journal may take one or more proportionate actions, including:

Taking no further action.
Requesting clarification or correction.
Rejecting the manuscript.
Publishing a correction.
Issuing an Expression of Concern.
Retracting the article.
Taking other appropriate editorial measures.
Referring the matter to the relevant institution or competent authority.

11. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Due Process

The journal will seek to ensure that the handling of allegations is:

Fair.
Proportionate.
Evidence-based.
Confidential.
Free from discrimination or inappropriate influence.

An allegation of misconduct does not itself establish that misconduct has occurred.

Where appropriate, persons directly affected by a substantive allegation will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final editorial action is taken, unless there are legitimate reasons that make prior notification inappropriate.

Information relating to an investigation will be kept confidential to the extent reasonably possible and disclosed only where necessary for legitimate editorial, institutional, legal, or regulatory purposes.

12. Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

Where a concern is identified after publication, the journal will assess its potential effect on the integrity of the scholarly record.

The appropriate action may include:

Correction

A correction may be issued where an error or omission can be addressed without undermining the overall validity of the article.

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued where substantial concerns exist but the available evidence or investigation has not yet reached a final conclusion.

Retraction

Retraction may be considered where the findings or conclusions are materially unreliable, where serious misconduct has affected the integrity of the work, or where another substantial reason requires removal of confidence in the published article.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions should be clearly identified and appropriately linked to the original publication record.

13. Cooperation with Institutions and Competent Authorities

The journal recognizes that some cases of research misconduct require formal investigation by institutions or other competent bodies beyond the journal's authority.

Accordingly, BERJ may communicate with:

The author's university or research institution.
A research ethics committee.
A research-integrity or misconduct office.
A regulatory or legal authority, where appropriate.
Another competent institutional or professional body.

The journal may take relevant findings from such investigations into account when determining appropriate editorial action.

14. Research Data, Records, and Supporting Materials

Where there is a reasonable basis for verification, the journal may request authors to provide relevant supporting materials, including:

Original datasets.
Raw or source data.
Analytical files.
Statistical or computational outputs.
Source code, where relevant.
Laboratory or experimental records.
Original image or figure files.
Other materials reasonably necessary to verify the reported findings.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests relating to the integrity and verification of their published work.

15. Malicious or Knowingly Misleading Allegations

The journal respects the right of individuals to raise concerns regarding research and publication integrity.

However, the reporting mechanism must not knowingly be used to submit false, malicious, or intentionally misleading allegations for the purpose of harming researchers, obstructing publication, or improperly influencing editorial decisions.

Where there is clear evidence of deliberate misuse of the allegation process, the journal may take appropriate action while preserving the right of individuals to make good-faith reports.

16. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions relating to research and publication misconduct must be based on evidence, applicable policies, and principles of research integrity.

Decisions must not be improperly influenced by:

Where an editor or editorial-board member has a direct or material interest in a case, appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure independent handling and decision-making.

17. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring, to the best of their knowledge:

The originality and integrity of their work.
The accuracy of data and reported results.
The accuracy and appropriateness of references and citations.
Correct and transparent attribution of authorship.
Disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest.
Compliance with applicable ethical requirements.
Appropriate disclosure of substantive use of AI tools where required.
Reasonable cooperation with investigations and verification requests.

18. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers are expected to:

Maintain confidentiality.
Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
Evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally.
Avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Raise credible concerns regarding possible misconduct.
Avoid discrimination, retaliation, or misuse of editorial or peer-review authority.

19. Alignment with International Publication Ethics Principles

BERJ follows internationally recognized principles and practices in research and publication ethics, including the recommendations and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal reviews and updates its policies and procedures periodically to reflect developments in research integrity, publication ethics, scholarly communication, and responsible use of emerging technologies.

This policy is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all possible forms of misconduct. The journal may consider and address new or unanticipated forms of misconduct in accordance with the principles of research integrity, fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and evidence-based decision-making.

20. Reporting and Contact Information

Concerns or allegations regarding research or publication misconduct may be submitted through the journal's official publication-ethics contact channel.

All reports will be handled confidentially and assessed according to this policy and other applicable journal procedures.

Publication Ethics Contact:
[Insert official journal email]

Last Updated:
[Insert actual date]

Related COPE Guidance:
The journal may refer to relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance when handling allegations of research or publication misconduct.