Publication Ethics Statement
Publication ethics
Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan follows the COPE Core Practices, the ICMJE recommendations on authorship, and the Declaration of Helsinki. This page states those commitments and points to the rule that implements each one.
This page is a summary, not a second rulebook
Every requirement, threshold, and deadline that binds authors, reviewers, and editors lives in one place: the Publication Policies. This page deliberately repeats none of them. It says what the journal has undertaken to do and links to where each undertaking is set out in full, so that the two documents cannot drift apart.
Where this page and the Policies appear to differ, the Policies prevail. Please tell the Editorial Office so the difference can be corrected.
Section 01
The ten COPE Core Practices, and where we implement each
A reader, a reviewer, or an indexing body can check any commitment against the governing text in one click.
| Core practice | What JPtpp undertakes | Governing text |
| Authorship and contributorship | Authorship follows the four ICMJE criteria; contributions are published using CRediT; changes to the author list are governed at each stage and disputes are referred to the authors' institutions. | Policies 01 |
| Ethical oversight | Human-participant research carries an ethics statement; research with pupils requires parental consent and the pupil's assent; consent to publish identifiable material is documented; a route exists for authors whose institution has no ethics committee. | Policies 02 |
| Conflicts of interest | Financial, institutional, intellectual-property, personal, and academic interests are declared by authors, reviewers, and editors alike. A declared interest rarely prevents publication; an undisclosed one has consequences. | Policies 03 |
| Data and reproducibility | Every research article carries a Data Availability Statement. Open data are encouraged but not required, because consent and ethical approval in school-based research often rule out open sharing; what is required is that readers be told plainly where the data stand. Raw data are retained for a stated minimum period and may be requested. | Policies 03 |
| Peer review processes | Review is double-anonymised, with a stated minimum number of independent reviewers, stated decision categories, and a published list of the grounds on which a manuscript is returned without review. | Policies 05 |
| Allegations of misconduct | Every allegation is acted on under the relevant COPE flowchart, at whatever stage the work has reached, with the named forms of misconduct and their consequences set out in advance. | Policies 04 |
| Intellectual property | Authors retain copyright and grant a non-exclusive right of first publication under CC BY-SA 4.0. Third-party material requires written permission and citation. Similarity is screened before review. | Policies 06, 02 |
| Post-publication discussions and corrections | Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and removals are issued as permanent public notices linked to and from the article, with the Crossref record updated so the notice reaches readers who found the article elsewhere. Anyone may raise a concern about a published article. | Policies 07 |
| Complaints and appeals | A published route exists for appealing a decision and for complaining about an editor or reviewer, with a stated window, a stated acknowledgement time, and an editor who took no part in the original decision. | Policies — Complaints and appeals |
| Journal management | Editorial decisions rest with the editors alone. Manuscripts by editors and by authors from the publishing institution are handled by an independent editor and receive no preference; the article processing charge is administered separately from the editorial process. | Policies 08, Editorial Board |
Section 02
What editors undertake
The obligations that come with holding the decision.
| Decide on the work, not the author | Manuscripts are judged on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and fit with the journal's scope. The nationality, ethnicity, gender, political beliefs, religion, seniority, or institutional standing of the authors plays no part, and neither does their ability to pay. |
| Keep submissions confidential | A manuscript is disclosed only to those handling it, and its unpublished content is never used in an editor's own work. Editors do not upload any part of a manuscript to an AI service. |
| Step aside where conflicted | An editor with a competing interest in a manuscript, including one they have authored, takes no part in handling it and has no access to its file. |
| Never require a citation | No editor may ask an author to cite this journal, or the editor's own work, as a condition of acceptance. Doing so is citation manipulation. |
| Give reasons, and hear disagreement | Decisions are communicated with their reasons. Reviewers' comments are passed to authors in full unless they contain offensive or defamatory remarks. Authors may appeal. |
| Correct the record promptly | Where an error or a serious concern is established, the notice is issued without delay and with due prominence. Correcting the record is the purpose; penalising authors is not. |
| Look after reviewers | Reviewer contributions are acknowledged. The journal stops sending work to reviewers who are persistently discourteous, careless, or late. |
Section 03
What reviewers undertake
By accepting an invitation, a reviewer accepts these.
| Decline what you cannot do well | A reviewer who lacks the relevant expertise, cannot meet the deadline, or holds a competing interest arising from competition, collaboration, or a personal or institutional connection says so and withdraws. |
| Treat the manuscript as confidential | Do not share it, discuss it with anyone outside the review, retain a copy after the review, or use its content before publication. Do not upload any part of it to an AI service, including for summarising, translating, or drafting the report; doing so breaches confidentiality and places the authors' unpublished work outside the journal's control. |
| Critique the work, not the person | Observations are set out clearly, with reasons the authors can act on. Personal criticism has no place in a report. Language quality alone is not grounds for a negative recommendation where the argument is sound. |
| Suggest sources honestly | Point to relevant work the authors have missed, and tell the editor of any substantial overlap with published work. Do not ask authors to cite your own work, or this journal, in order to improve your standing or the journal's. |
| Raise ethical concerns | Reviewers are encouraged to flag unethical study design, missing consent or approval, inappropriate handling of data or images, redundant publication, and suspected plagiarism. Raising a concern is always welcome, including where it turns out to be unfounded. |
Section 04
What authors undertake
Each of these is set out in full in the Policies; the link beside it takes you there.
| Report the work accurately | Describe the rationale, method, and analysis fully enough for another researcher to verify or repeat the study, and discuss its significance objectively. Fabrication, falsification, and knowingly inaccurate reporting are misconduct. | 03, 04 |
| Submit original, unpublished work | Acknowledge the words and ideas of others, submit to one journal at a time, and where you build on your own earlier work, cite it and say what is new here. A preprint of your own work is not prior publication. | 04, 06 |
| Name the right people | Every author meets all four criteria and has approved the submission; everyone who contributed substantially is named, including students and research assistants; nobody is added who did not earn it. | 01 |
| Declare interests, funding, and AI use | Disclose anything that could reasonably be seen as affecting objectivity, name every funding source and the funder's role, and state what generative-AI tools were used and for what. Where there is nothing to declare, say so. | 03 |
| Protect participants | Obtain and document ethical approval and consent before collecting data, obtain parental consent and the pupil's assent for minors, and keep identifying detail out of the article unless consent covers its publication. | 02 |
| Keep the data, and say where it is | Carry a Data Availability Statement, retain raw data and original image files for the period the Policies specify, and produce them if the editors ask. | 03 |
| Own your errors | If you find a significant error in your published article, tell the editors promptly and work with them on a correction or, where the findings can no longer be relied on, a retraction. Authors who come forward are treated as acting properly. | 07 |
Raising an ethical concern
Anyone — author, reviewer, reader, or institution — may write to the Editorial Office about a submitted or published article. Set out the specific concern and the evidence for it; the journal does not act on unsupported assertions. Concerns are acknowledged, assessed under the relevant COPE flowchart, and normally put to the authors for a response before anything is decided. The person who raised the concern is told the outcome. Anonymous concerns are considered on their evidence, though anonymity limits what can be investigated.
The full procedure, including the appeal window and who decides, is set out under Complaints and appeals.
Write to [email protected], quoting the submission ID or article DOI · Contact page →