Higher Education Politics & Economics (ISSN: 2380-1131) is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and the Editorial Board of this journal does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to HEPE affirm that manuscript contents are original.
The following duties outlined for editors, copy editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, AERA Code of Ethics, and APA Publication Ethics. Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the HEPE submission guidelines:
Duties of Editor/Copy Editor
- Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the Editorial Review Board, the editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript.
- Review of Manuscripts: Each editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. Following desk review, the manuscript is forwarded blind peer review to the editorial review board who will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.
- Fair Review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript submitted to the Higher Education Politics & Economics is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
- Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of this Journal shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without written consent of the author.
- Errata Information: The editor must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
- Ethical Guidelines: The editor shall ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
- Proof of Misconduct: The editor should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
- Accountability: Editors attend four annual meetings through video conferences or virtual communications and advise on journal policy and scope, suggest ideas, new initiatives and programs if necessary to include in the journal. They may review submitted manuscripts, identify topics for special issues or attract new authors and submissions if necessary.
Duties of Authors
- Publication guidelines: Authors must follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
- Original Work: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
- Multiple Submissions: Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
- Peer Review Process: Authors must participate in the peer review process.
- Authorship of the Paper: All authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
- Data Access and Retention: Authors should provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data.
- Authenticity of Data: Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
- Conflict of Interest: Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
- Fundamental Errors: Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes at any point of time if the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscript.
- Submission Check Form: All authors must complete the author submission checklist.
- Research on Human Subjects: When appropriate, all authors must cite approval by an institutional review board (IRB) for research on human subjects.
Duties of Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research.
- Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
- Supporting Argument: Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Plagiarism, Fraud and Other Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should let the editor know if you suspect/find that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
- Relevant Work: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.
- Accountabilty: Review members attend two annual meetings through video conferences or virtual communications and suggest ideas, new initiatives, and programs if necessary to include in the journal. They review submitted manuscripts, identify topics for special issues or attract new authors and submissions if necessary.