Publication Ethics, Policies and Processes

Introduction

We hope all the work we publish will adhere to a high standard to respect to those in the engineering education community, that the work is suitably original, that it has been carried out as described, that ethical processes are sound related to data protection and the use of volunteers and that credit is given to those who contributed to the work.

We follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to support our approach to publication ethics in relation to the SEFI Journal of Engineering Education Advancement.

If you have concerns in relation to specific papers please contact the Editor in Chief outlining your concerns. Please be specific in terms of your concerns and supply links to supporting evidence as appropriate. Approaches to handling these will follow the processes shown below.

As mentioned above and summarised below, we will use COPE guidelines to inform our investigation and resolution process. See COPE spreadsheet on how we will handle general complaints and appeals.

 

Policies and processes : Author Focus

• Authorship

  We expect all named authors to have contributed to the work in a meaningful way - reviewing literature, developing methodology, planning trials, gathering and analysing data, writing the paper, etc. Those with only tangential involvement should not be named as authors but can be acknowledged and thanked in the text as appropriate.

  Similarly, it is important that those who did contribute in a substantial way to the work presented are not unfairly omitted from authorship. COPE guidance will be used to help us handle concerns related to authorship and contributorship.

• Conflict of Interest

  We expect authors to declare conflicts of interest where their work could be perceived to have been influenced by, for example, the use of commercial products or software which may have been supplied at beneficial terms in direct relation to the work presented. Other scenarios may include where the work described has, for example, a commercial dimension which the author or a close associate has a stake in.

  We similarly request referees should declare a conflict if they believe they have personal connections to authors or where the paper references products or services with which they are professionally or personally linked.

  To ensure transparency, sources of funding for the work, (beyond the normal operations budget of the authors' institutions) should be clearly stated. This may include grants from government or charities, commercial sponsorship, or donations etc.

  COPE guidance, as per the linked flowchart, will be used to help us handle any concerns related to conflicts of interest

• Originality and Plagiarism

  We expect all work submitted to the journal to be original and not previously published elsewhere. Work of the authors and others which was used to support the ideas in the paper should be correctly cited and acknowledged. Authors, by submitting their work to the journal confirm it is free from plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.

  Authors should not submit the same, or substantially the same, work to another journal or conference at the same time. This counts as unethical behaviour and could result in inadvertent plagiarism and duplication. 

  To avoid duplication, papers that build on previously published work (including the authors’ own) should include only minimal appropriate description of this for context, with full details provided through appropriate citation.

• Ethical Review

  The nature of education is that developments in practice very often involve engagement with students, academics and others. Where this is done authors need to ensure that, as appropriate, institutional ethical approval is obtained to ensure individuals and their data are treated fairly. COPE guidance will be used to help us handle concerns related to ethical oversight.

• Source Data Availability

  As an online journal, it is possible for us to publish source data alongside the manuscript and encourage authors to consider making this available to aid in transparency. Authors are advised to retain source data where appropriate should this be needed to help inform any disputes on paper validity. For issues related to data rigour please see : data sharing and reproducibility.

• Errors in Work

  Authors are obliged to report any significant errors or important omissions in their own published work which may mislead readers. The editorial team will work with the authors to decide the correct course of action, whether amendment or retraction.

• Appealing Issues Related to Misconduct

  Authors have the right to appeal misconduct judgements which may be applied to their submission. Appeals should be lodged within 30 days of the misconduct decision. The rationale for the appeal should be stated clearly and be supplemented with evidence as appropriate. The review of the case will by senior editorial board members who were not involved in the initial case. Appeals will follow COPE approaches and be centred on principles of transparency and fairness.