1. Policy Statement

The Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd) is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, credibility, and reliability of scholarly research and the published scientific record.

The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and is committed to addressing them through fair, transparent, confidential, evidence-based, and proportionate procedures.

JIEEd follows relevant principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applicable ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

This policy establishes procedures for identifying, reporting, assessing, investigating, and resolving suspected research or publication misconduct involving submitted or published manuscripts.

It applies to all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, peer reviewers, and editorial personnel.

2. Definition and Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to serious violations of accepted standards of scientific integrity in conducting, analyzing, reviewing, reporting, or publishing research.

JIEEd recognizes the following principal forms of research and publication misconduct.

Type of Misconduct	Description
Data Fabrication	Inventing research data, participants, observations, interviews, measurements, or results
Data Falsification	Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or findings in ways that misrepresent the research
Plagiarism	Using another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment
Duplicate or Redundant Publication	Publishing substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure or scholarly justification
Authorship Misconduct	Misrepresenting author contributions, including gift, ghost, coercive, or fraudulent authorship
Citation Manipulation	Inappropriately manipulating references or citations to influence scholarly metrics or editorial outcomes
Peer-Review Manipulation	Interfering with the independence or authenticity of the peer-review process
Ethical Violations	Conducting or reporting research without required ethical safeguards or in violation of participant rights
Misrepresentation of Research	Providing misleading information about research methods, procedures, approvals, or results
Misuse of Artificial Intelligence	Using AI to fabricate evidence, invent references, conceal prohibited practices, or compromise research and review integrity

These categories are not exhaustive. Other serious violations of research integrity or publication ethics may also be investigated.

Honest methodological errors, legitimate scientific disagreements, and differences in scholarly interpretation do not automatically constitute misconduct. Such issues must be assessed according to their nature, evidence, and effect on the reliability of the research.

3. Fundamental Principles for Handling Allegations

JIEEd applies the following principles when addressing suspected misconduct.

3.1 Fairness and Impartiality

Allegations must be evaluated objectively and without premature conclusions.

All relevant parties should receive fair treatment, and individuals must not be presumed responsible for misconduct solely because an allegation has been submitted.

3.2 Evidence-Based Assessment

Editorial actions must be supported by relevant evidence, such as manuscript comparisons, research documentation, correspondence, data records, or independent expert assessments.

Automated screening results alone are not conclusive evidence of misconduct.

3.3 Confidentiality

Information relating to allegations and investigations must be handled confidentially, subject to legitimate requirements for institutional cooperation, legal compliance, and protection of the scholarly record.

3.4 Opportunity to Respond

Individuals whose conduct is questioned should, where appropriate, be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the concerns and provide relevant explanations or supporting documentation.

3.5 Proportionality

Editorial responses must reflect the nature, seriousness, and consequences of the identified problem.

Not every error requires rejection or retraction.

3.6 Editorial Independence

Individuals with relevant competing interests must not control the assessment or resolution of an allegation.

3.7 Protection of the Scholarly Record

The primary purpose of editorial action is to maintain the accuracy and reliability of scholarly communication rather than to impose punishment.

4. Reporting Suspected Research Misconduct

JIEEd accepts credible concerns regarding submitted or published manuscripts from authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, and other relevant parties.

Reports should be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact.

4.1 Information Required

Reports should provide sufficient information to support an initial assessment, including, where available:

The title, authors, DOI, or other identifying information of the manuscript or article.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Relevant supporting evidence or documentation.
Identification of the affected text, data, figures, or research procedures.
Relevant source publications or records.
Contact details for further clarification, where appropriate.

4.2 Anonymous Allegations

Anonymous allegations may be considered when accompanied by specific, credible, and verifiable evidence.

The absence of the complainant's identity does not automatically invalidate a report.

However, insufficiently supported allegations may not justify further investigation.

4.3 Protection of Complainants

JIEEd seeks to protect individuals who raise concerns in good faith from inappropriate disclosure or retaliation within the journal's control.

The journal cannot guarantee absolute anonymity when disclosure is required by applicable procedures, institutional investigations, or legal obligations.

Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves constitute a serious ethical concern.

5. Initial Assessment of Allegations

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor conducts an initial assessment.

The assessment determines:

Whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibility.
Whether the allegation contains sufficient information for examination.
Whether the concern involves a submitted or published manuscript.
Whether the available evidence indicates a credible research-integrity problem.
Whether urgent action is necessary to prevent further harm.
Whether any editorial conflicts of interest require independent handling.

The editor may request further information from the complainant or other relevant sources.

An initial assessment does not constitute a determination that misconduct has occurred.

Possible Initial Outcomes

Following preliminary evaluation, the journal may:

Close the matter when the concern is unsupported or outside the journal's jurisdiction.
Request additional information or clarification.
Address a minor error through routine editorial procedures.
Open a formal editorial inquiry.
Refer the concern to an appropriate institution or authority.
Temporarily suspend manuscript processing while a serious concern is assessed.

All significant decisions should be appropriately documented.

6. Procedures for Investigating Allegations

When the initial assessment identifies a credible possibility of misconduct, JIEEd follows a structured procedure.

Stage 1 — Registration and Preliminary Review

The editorial office records the allegation and examines the supporting information.

Relevant manuscript files, reports, correspondence, and evidence are preserved as appropriate.

Stage 2 — Conflict-of-Interest Assessment

The journal determines whether the handling editor or other individuals involved have relationships that could compromise impartiality.

An independent editor is appointed when necessary.

Stage 3 — Notification and Author Response

Where appropriate, the corresponding author is informed of the substantive concerns and invited to provide a detailed explanation.

The corresponding author may be asked to consult all co-authors and submit relevant documentation.

When an allegation concerns an individual author or another participant in the editorial process, communication arrangements may be adapted to ensure a fair and independent assessment.

Stage 4 — Evaluation of Evidence

The editor reviews the explanations and available evidence.

Additional materials may be requested, including research data, relevant analytical procedures, ethical approval documentation, or manuscript history, where justified and legally permissible.

Stage 5 — Independent Expert Consultation

Complex matters may require consultation with relevant methodological, statistical, disciplinary, or research-integrity experts.

Experts must have appropriate qualifications and no significant conflicts of interest.

They must maintain confidentiality and comply with JIEEd's AI Use Policy.

Stage 6 — Institutional Cooperation

Where allegations concern research conduct beyond the journal's ability to investigate, the editor may refer the matter to the relevant research institution or competent authority.

The journal may cooperate with appropriate institutional investigations by providing relevant evidence and responding to reasonable requests.

Stage 7 — Resolution and Editorial Decision

The editor considers the available evidence, author responses, expert opinions, and institutional findings where applicable.

The journal determines an appropriate editorial action based on the reliability of the manuscript or published article and the seriousness of the concern.

Stage 8 — Documentation and Communication

The journal records the assessment, relevant communications, and final editorial decision.

Affected parties are informed as appropriate, subject to confidentiality and legal requirements.

7. Rights and Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to cooperate honestly and promptly with legitimate research-integrity inquiries.

Authors may be requested to:

Explain questioned research procedures or findings.
Provide relevant supporting documentation.
Clarify the origin and use of research data.
Verify citations and source attribution.
Provide ethical approval or consent information where applicable.
Explain relationships between related publications.
Clarify substantive AI use.
Correct identified errors.

Authors have the right to provide explanations and relevant evidence before a final determination is made, where reasonably practicable.

Authors should not destroy, conceal, fabricate, or improperly alter relevant evidence during an investigation.

Failure to cooperate may be considered in the editorial assessment, but non-response alone does not automatically prove misconduct.

8. Special Considerations for Research Involving Children

Because JIEEd publishes research in elementary education, allegations involving children's rights, safety, privacy, or research participation require particular attention.

Potential concerns include:

Research conducted without required ethical approval or institutional permission.
Failure to obtain parental or guardian consent where necessary.
Failure to obtain age-appropriate child assent where required.
Coercion or inappropriate pressure on student participants.
Unauthorized disclosure of identifiable student information.
Misuse of confidential educational records.
Publication of identifiable photographs, recordings, or case details without appropriate authorization.
Fabrication or misrepresentation of classroom observations or student data.

When an allegation suggests an immediate risk to the welfare of children, the journal may refer the concern to the appropriate institution or responsible authority in accordance with applicable safeguarding and legal requirements.

Editors must protect confidential participant information during any examination.

9. Plagiarism, Data Integrity, and AI-Related Misconduct

9.1 Plagiarism and Similarity Reports

JIEEd uses Turnitin for similarity screening and applies a technical similarity threshold of no more than 20%.

However, similarity scores are not conclusive evidence of plagiarism.

Editors evaluate relevant matching material, source attribution, research context, and the nature of the alleged intellectual appropriation.

Detailed requirements are provided in the journal's Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy.

9.2 Fabrication and Falsification

Allegations concerning fabricated or falsified data may require examination of supporting records, research procedures, analytical outputs, or other relevant materials.

The journal may request an independent expert assessment or institutional investigation.

9.3 AI-Related Integrity Violations

Suspected AI-related misconduct may include:

AI-generated fictitious research data.
Fabricated or unverifiable references.
Misrepresentation of AI-generated content as authentic research evidence.
Undisclosed substantive AI use when disclosure is required.
Unauthorized processing of protected participant information.
AI-assisted manipulation intended to conceal plagiarism.

An automated AI-writing detection score is not sufficient evidence to establish misconduct.

9.4 AI Misuse in Peer Review

JIEEd prohibits reviewers from using generative AI to analyze or evaluate manuscripts, generate peer-review comments, or upload confidential manuscript content.

Suspected violations may result in the withdrawal of an affected review report, reassignment of the manuscript, or other appropriate action.

The journal applies its separate AI Use Policy when assessing these concerns.

10. Editorial Actions Before Publication

When concerns arise during submission, editorial screening, or peer review, JIEEd may take proportionate action.

Finding	Possible Editorial Action
No substantiated concern	Continue normal editorial processing
Minor error or incomplete disclosure	Request clarification or correction
Remediable methodological or reporting problem	Request revision and additional supporting information
Serious unresolved concern	Suspend processing pending further assessment
Substantiated serious misconduct	Reject the manuscript and consider further appropriate action
Compromised peer review	Disregard the affected report and arrange independent reassessment

A manuscript may be rejected when serious misconduct or an independently sufficient scientific deficiency is established.

A decision to suspend processing does not itself establish misconduct.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact relevant institutions or other journals concerning substantiated publication-integrity issues.

11. Editorial Actions After Publication

Concerns identified after publication are evaluated according to their consequences for the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the published record.

JIEEd may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when justified by the available evidence.

11.1 Corrections

A correction may be issued when an error affects published information but does not fundamentally invalidate the article's principal findings or conclusions.

Examples may include:

Incorrect numerical values that do not materially change the conclusions.
Errors in figures, tables, or labels.
Incomplete or inaccurate attribution.
Correctable authorship or affiliation information.
Material reporting errors that can be resolved transparently.

Corrections must clearly identify the original article and explain the affected information.

11.2 Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when credible and serious questions about an article remain unresolved, particularly when:

Available evidence is inconclusive.
An investigation is ongoing or substantially delayed.
Relevant information cannot yet be obtained.
Readers should be alerted to potential problems affecting the reliability of published findings.

An expression of concern is not a determination that misconduct has occurred and is not a substitute for a justified retraction.

The journal should reassess the notice when further evidence becomes available.

11.3 Retractions

An article may be retracted when its findings or scholarly record are seriously compromised.

Possible grounds include:

Clear evidence that principal findings are unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, or serious methodological errors.
Substantial plagiarism or misappropriation of scholarly content.
Serious redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate justification.
Major ethical violations affecting the legitimacy of the research.
Compromised peer review or publication procedures that materially undermine confidence in the publication.
Other serious circumstances that justify withdrawal of the article's claims from the reliable scholarly record.

Retraction may be appropriate even when unreliability results from an honest error rather than deliberate misconduct.

The purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record, not to punish authors.

12. Retraction Procedures and Public Notices

When a retraction is warranted, JIEEd follows relevant COPE Retraction Guidelines.

A retraction notice should:

Clearly identify the article being retracted.
State the reasons for the retraction accurately and objectively.
Explain whether the issue involves unreliable results, honest error, misconduct, or another substantiated concern, as far as the available evidence permits.
Identify the issuing party.
Be publicly accessible.
Be linked to the original article.
Include appropriate bibliographic information and publication identifiers.

The original article should ordinarily remain accessible with a prominent retraction notice or watermark, unless exceptional legal, privacy, or ethical circumstances require removal.

Where possible, the journal updates relevant article metadata and communicates the correction or retraction through appropriate publishing and indexing channels.

Retractions may be issued without unanimous author agreement when justified by sufficient evidence and a fair editorial assessment.

Full-text removal should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as legal requirements, serious privacy risks, or protection of vulnerable individuals.

13. Cooperation with Research Institutions

JIEEd recognizes that research institutions and scholarly journals have complementary responsibilities.

Research institutions generally have responsibility for investigating the conduct of researchers and assessing relevant institutional records, procedures, and responsibilities.

Journal editors are responsible for evaluating manuscripts, maintaining appropriate editorial procedures, and protecting the integrity of the published record.

Where necessary, JIEEd may:

Notify relevant institutions of credible research-integrity concerns.
Request verification of ethical approval or research documentation.
Seek clarification concerning institutional investigations.
Provide relevant evidence to authorized investigators.
Consider findings communicated by responsible institutions.
Cooperate with other journals when concerns involve overlapping publications.

JIEEd retains editorial responsibility for decisions concerning submitted or published articles.

An institutional investigation does not automatically determine the journal's editorial response.

Where reliable evidence already demonstrates that published findings are seriously invalid, the journal may need to act to protect readers without waiting indefinitely for the completion of institutional proceedings.

14. Complaints, Appeals, and Reconsideration

Individuals affected by an editorial misconduct decision may submit an appeal when they believe that:

Relevant evidence was overlooked.
A material factual error influenced the decision.
The investigation involved a significant procedural irregularity.
A relevant conflict of interest was not adequately managed.
The editorial response was disproportionate to the established findings.

Appeals must include a clear explanation and relevant supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor, where appropriate, evaluates the appeal.

The journal may seek further expert advice when necessary.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a correction or other action needed to protect the scholarly record.

The journal will communicate the outcome and provide an appropriate explanation.

15. Confidentiality, Records, and Timeliness

JIEEd seeks to address allegations promptly while allowing sufficient time for appropriate assessment.

The duration of an inquiry may vary depending on the complexity of the case, availability of evidence, responsiveness of the parties, and involvement of external institutions.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed investigation period.

Editors must maintain appropriate records of:

Allegations received.
Relevant supporting evidence.
Communications with concerned parties.
Conflict-of-interest assessments.
Expert consultations.
Editorial decisions.
Corrections or post-publication notices.

Records must be protected against unauthorized disclosure and handled in accordance with relevant confidentiality and data-protection obligations.

Communication concerning allegations should avoid unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information or premature findings.

16. Policy Oversight and Continuous Improvement

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for ensuring that allegations of research and publication misconduct are addressed consistently and fairly.

The publisher supports the implementation of ethical procedures while respecting editorial independence.

JIEEd periodically reviews this policy to reflect developments in research integrity, publication ethics, scholarly publishing practices, and applicable regulations.

Substantive changes will be communicated through the journal's official website.

This policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics, Peer Review Policy, AI Use Policy, and Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy.

Related Journal Policies

Ethical Guidance and References

This policy is informed by:

Research Misconduct Policy