1.1 Originality

When an author submits a manuscript to International Journal of Education & Training (InjET) , the manuscript must be an original work. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. If the manuscript contains materials that overlap with work that is previously published, or is in-press, or that is under consideration for publication elsewhere, the Author must cite this work in the manuscript.

The Author must also inform the InjET’s Chief Executive Editor of the related work and, if requested, send the manuscript to him. Authors must withdraw papers that are under review with any other journal, if the paper is submitted to InjET subsequently. Authors must explicitly cite their own earlier work and ideas, even when the work or ideas are not quoted verbatim or paraphrased in the manuscript. If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material should be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited in a way that does not compromise the double-blind review process. Authors should avoid excessively citing their earlier works in order to inflate their citation count.

Authors should also avoid self-citation that might violate the double-blind review process. If self-identifying information is unavoidable, the Author should include the information in the manuscript's Acknowledgements (which are not forwarded to the Reviewers) and also inform InjET’s Chief Executive Editor. Authors should not submit a manuscript to InjET that was previously submitted to InjET, sent out for review, and rejected after review by a InjET Editor. If an earlier version was previously rejected by InjET, and the author wishes to submit a revised version for review, this fact and the justification for resubmission should be clearly communicated by the author to the InjET 's Chief Executive Editor at the time of submission. It is strongly suggested that authors wishing to submit manuscripts for intending publication in InjET journal should check their manuscripts for possible plagiarism using any anti-plagiarism software such as Turn It In before submitting it to the Chief Executive Editor, InjET Journal.

1.2 Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism

All work in the manuscript should be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, or omission of significant material. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without credit), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

Authors are expected to explicitly cite others' work and ideas, even if the work or ideas are not quoted verbatim or paraphrased. This standard applies whether the previous work is published, unpublished, or electronically available.

Self-plagiarism (or ”redundancy”) can occur in at least two ways:

a. Authors recycle portions of their previous writings by using identical or nearly identical sentences or paragraphs from earlier writings in subsequent research papers, without quotation or acknowledgement; or
b. Authors create multiple papers that are slight variations of each other, which are submitted for publication in different journals but without acknowledgement of the other papers.

Self-plagiarism is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been usually assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one's own words one can use before it is truly "plagiarism". Probably for this reason self-plagiarism is not generally regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals. Moreover, since publication decisions are influenced by the novelty and innovativeness of manuscripts, such deception is inappropriate and unethical. In actual fact this can be minimized or avoided by citing one’s previous publications wherever necessary.

Authors should therefore minimize recycling of previous writings. If recycling is unavoidable, the author should inform the Chief Executive Editor at the time of submission and reference the previous writings in the manuscript. Such self-referencing should be worded carefully so as to avoid compromising the double-blind review process.

Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior which is unacceptable.

Tips for avoiding plagiarism
• Cite all your sources, whether you have read or heard them,
• Keep full records of every source of information you use including the date you accessed electronic resources,
• Place quotation marks around any words you copy verbatim and credit the source,
• Use your own words when summarising or paraphrasing someone else’s words – but don’t forget – you will still need to reference it!
• Make sure you check with your Journal which referencing system they want you to use.

1.3 Multiple Submissions Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:

 An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

The manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, either in whole (including book chapters) or in part (including paragraphs of text or exhibits), whether in English or another language.

1.4 Conflicts of Interest

Authors should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest throughout the research process. A conflict of interest is some fact known to a participant in the publication process that if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived (or an Author, Reviewer, or Editor feel defensive). Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors. Possible conflicts often are not immediately apparent to others.

They may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. Financial interests may include employment, research funding (received or pending), stock or share ownership, patents, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, non-financial support, or any fiduciary interest in the company. The perception of a conflict of interest is nearly as important as an actual conflict, since both erode trust.
Any queries about possible conflicts of interest should be addressed to the Journal’s Chief Executive Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Authors should not nominate individuals whom they know have already read and provided comments on the manuscript or a previous version of the manuscript since such knowledge would automatically violate the double-blind review process.

1.5 Authorship Policies

Authorship The corresponding (submitting) author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and with managing communication between co-authors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, its order has been agreed by all authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted.

Change of Authorship policy on authorship does not support adding or removing of names once the article has been submitted to InjET and has completed the review process. However, a request for a change to the authorship can be considered by the Chief Executive Editor if the Corresponding author of the manuscript addresses the following concerns:

Co-Authorship

All Co-Authors of papers should have made significant contributions to the work and share accountability for the results. Authorship and credit should be shared in proportion to the various parties' contributions. Authors should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. Other contributions should be cited in the manuscript's Acknowledgements or an endnote.

Authors should normally list a student as the principal Co-Author on multiple-authored publications that substantially derive from the student's dissertation or thesis.
Authors who analyze data from others should explicitly acknowledge the contribution of the initial researchers.

The Corresponding Author who submits a manuscript to InjET should have sent all living Co-Authors a draft and obtained their assent to submission and publication.

1.6 Copyright Law

Copyright violation is an important, and possibly related, ethical issue. Authors should check their manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g., where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications or from other freely available sources on the Internet) and secure the necessary permissions before submission to InjET.

1.7 Bioethics

Human and other animal experiments
For primary research, manuscripts in the InjET journal (regular articles, short communications, reviews) reporting experiments on live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and the necessary ethics clearance has been obtained from the relevant body.

1.8 Manuscript Withdrawal

Authors may write to the Chief Executive Editor requesting for the withdrawal of a manuscript that has been previously submitted for intended publication in InjET. However, such withdrawal is usually permitted within two weeks from the date of initial submission to InjET, or prior to the peer-review process, whichever is earlier. If the author withdraws the manuscript after the peer-review process has begun, InjET has the right to reject the paper without taking into account the status of the referee’s evaluation.

Timeliness

Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given, the Author should contact the InjET’s Chief Executive Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period, or withdrawal from the review process should be chosen as an exceptional case.

Code of Ethics for Reviewers and Editors

2.1 Reciprocity Reviewing for journal is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to InjET are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.

2.2 Double-Blind Peer-Review

InjET follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by journal editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.

Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the manuscript should not include any self-revealing information that would identify the Author to a Reviewer.

Authors should not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential Reviewers. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.

Authors should not nominate as Editor or Reviewer individuals whom they know have already read and provided comments on the manuscript or a previous version of the manuscript since such knowledge would automatically violate the double-blind review process.

Where articles appear in the Journal that were not double-blind reviewed, the standard of review should be clearly stated in the printed Acknowledgements accompanying the article.

For example, an introductory article written by a Guest Editor for a Special Issue would normally be single-blind reviewed, and should be so identified when published. Regular reviewers selected for the journal should be required to meet minimum standards regarding their background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisals of manuscripts.

Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review, and should be selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who do not have such expertise cannot be reviewers, and there is no role for review of articles by individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the article (e.g. those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with ideological agendas, etc.).

2.3 Review Quality

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique where an expert in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it). Authors may request that certain Reviewers not be used, but this decision should be left to the Chief Executive Editor's or the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion.

The Editor should routinely assess all reviews for quality. In rare circumstances, an Editor may edit a review before sending it to an Author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the Reviewer) or not send the review to the Author if it is not constructive or appropriate.

Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics should be periodically assessed by the Chief Executive Editor to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the InjET Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers should be available to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential.

Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high quality review should be as follows:

1. The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology.
2. The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
3. The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
4. The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
5. The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
6. The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional.
7. The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

All reviewers are informed of the journal's expectations, and editors should make an effort to educate them and suggest educational materials (such as, articles on how to peer review):
a. The editors should routinely assess all reviews for quality.
b. They may also edit reviews before sending them to authors, or simply not send them if they feel they are not constructive or appropriate.
c. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of reviewers should be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment or ongoing review requests (for journal that do not formally appoint reviewers).
d. Individual performance data must be kept confidential.
e. Performance measures such as review completion times should be used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance.

2.4 What is expected of Reviewers?

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Chief Executive Editor or Editors. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.
If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Chief Executive Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so. High-quality review is important, but equally important is that readers be able to readily determine which contents of the journal are peer-reviewed. The journal should describe which types of articles are peer reviewed, and by whom (i.e. only by editorial board members, by outside expert reviewers, or both).

2.5 Timeliness

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the Chief Executive Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.

2.6 Decision Quality

The Chief Executive Editor has a responsibility to provide the Author with an explanation of the editorial decision on a manuscript. Editors should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewers’ comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter, without explanation, attached to a set of reviewers’ comments.

2.7 Submission by Editorial Board Members

Publishing work from a journal's own Editorial Board member: All manuscripts submitted to InjET undergo the rigid double blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. In addition, when making editorial decisions about peer reviewed articles where an editor is an author or is acknowledged as a contributor, InjET has mechanism that ensures that the affected editors or staff members exclude themselves and are not involved in the publication decision. When editors are presented with papers where their own interests may impair their ability to make an unbiased editorial decision, they should deputize decisions about the paper to a suitably qualified individual.
In such cases, the Chief Executive Editor would ensure a suitable editorial board member or the Editor-in-Chief would evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally, and personal biases would be avoided in their comments and judgments.

Statement released by

UPM Press
Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor