Προσωπικό
Διάφορα
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
(Journal Name: Science Education: Research and Praxis)
This journal follows the guidelines of the ‘Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org). This journal follows the ‘Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors’ and the ‘Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers’ as mentioned in COPE website (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines and https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
1. Duties of Editors
1.1 Fair play
The submitted manuscripts are assessed for their academic content regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy. Decisions to edit and publish are not controlled by government regulations or by any other entity outside the journal itself.
1.2 Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff will not reveal any details about a submitted manuscript to anyone, other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher, as necessary.
1.3 Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the own research of an Editor without explicit written permission of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas that editors receive as a result of manuscript handling would be kept confidential and not used for their personal benefit. Editors will refuse to act as an editor for manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from financial, competitive, collaborative or other relationships/association with any of the authors, companies or organisations linked to the papers; instead, they will ask another board member to handle the manuscript.
1.3 Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the own research of an Editor without explicit written permission of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas that editors receive as a result of manuscript handling would be kept confidential and not used for their personal benefit. Editors will refuse to act as an editor for manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from financial, competitive, collaborative or other relationships/association with any of the authors, companies or organisations linked to the papers; instead, they will ask another board member to handle the manuscript.
1.4 Publication decisions
The journal’s editor is responsible for determining which of the submitted papers should be published. The editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal and limited by such legal provisions as are then in place in respect of libel, violation of copyright and plagiarism. When making this decision, the handling editor can consult with other editors or reviewers.
2. Duties of Peer Reviewers
2.1 Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review helps the editor to make editorial decisions and, through editorial correspondence with the author, can also assist the author in the refinement of the manuscript.
2.2 Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research contained in a manuscript or who knows that its timely review would be extremely difficult/impossible should immediately inform the editors and refuse the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
2.3 Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for review must be considered as confidential documents. Except where approved by the editor, they must not be shown or shared with others. This policy is also applicable for the invited reviewers who refuse the invitation to review.
2.4 Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be carried out objectively, and suggestions should be clearly articulated with supporting reasons, so that authors may use them to refine the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate and must be avoided. Referees should clearly express their opinions with suitable and reasonable supporting arguments.
2.5 Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should also identify relevant published work which the authors have not cited. Every statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been published in previous publications should be followed by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also inform the editors of any apparent resemblance or similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscripts (published or unpublished) about which they have personal knowledge.
2.6 Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or concepts gained through peer review must be held confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must not consider reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest as a result of a financial, competitive, collaborative or other relationship or association with any of the authors, companies or organisations involved in the submission.
3. Duties of authors
3.1 Reporting standards
Authors documenting the findings of the original research should include an accurate description of the work done and an objective analysis of its importance. The underlying data should be correctly reflected in the manuscript. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or intentionally false claims represent unethical behaviour and are not permissible.
3.2 Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written completely original works, and if the authors have used the works and/or the words of others, that they have been properly referenced or quoted. Plagiarism takes several types, from “passing” another’s paper as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing large sections of another’s paper (without attribution) to claiming findings from studies by others. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes an unethical behaviour in publishing and is unacceptable.
3.3 Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
In general, the author should not publish papers presenting fundamentally the same study in more than one journal or primary publication. At the same time, the submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes an unethical publishing activity and is unacceptable.
3.4 Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.< /p>
3.5 Authorship of the manuscript
Authorship should be restricted to those who have made an important contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made major contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
3.6 Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
3.7 Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
3.8 Peer review
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
3.9 Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review.
3.10 Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
4. Duties of the Publisher
4.1 Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editor, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
4.2 Access to journal content
The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by maintaining its own digital archive.
4.3 Fair play
The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, colour, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.
Editorial Policy
Editorial General Guidelines
Editorial Process
This journal follows strict double blind fold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure unbiased evaluation. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. Submissions will be considered by an editor and “if not rejected right away” by peer-reviewers. High quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers of the same field.
The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:
Publish “As it is”
Consider after Minor Changes
Consider after Major Changes
Reject: Manuscript is flawed.
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:
Publish “As it is”
Consider after Minor Changes
Consider after Major Changes
Reject
If the Editor recommends “Publish “As it is”,” the manuscript is accepted for publication.
If the Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.
If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be “Publish “As it is”,” “Consider after Minor Changes,” or “Reject.”
If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.
The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
This journal believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal’s decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership – both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. This journal will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound.
Plagiarism Policy
This journal aims to publish original high quality research work. Submission of manuscript to this journal indicates that the study has not been published anywhere or not been submitted elsewhere for publication. If author(s) are using any part of published paper (in English or any other language), they should give proper reference or in any case, if required they should get permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder (whichever is suitable). Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted.
