Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing articles in our journal, including authors, editors, bestary partners, and the publisher of Harapan Ananda Education and Development Foundation. This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. It follows its Best Practice Guidelines to ensure ethical publishing and maintain the integrity of the academic record.

Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology is a peer-reviewed journal published by Yayasan Pendidikan dan Pengembangan Harapan Ananda in collaboration with Indonesian Journal Publishers Association (HIPJI), Indonesian Journal Volunteers (RJI), the Association of Informatics and Computer Colleges (APTIKOM), and the Indonesian Informaticians Association (IAII). This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in this journal, including authors, editor-in-chief, Editorial Board, bestarial partners, and publisher. This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology is an important development and respected knowledge network. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the author's work and the institution that supports it. Therefore, it is important to agree on expected standards of ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, journal editors, reviewers, publishers, and the public.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed of Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher and the society.  

Yayasan Pendidikan dan Pengembangan Harapan Ananda as the publisher of this Journal takes the duty of guardianship over all stages of publishing very seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Indonesian Journal Publishers Association (HIPJI), Indonesian Journal Volunteers (RJI) and the Vocational Editorial Board Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology will assist in communication with other journals and/or publishers if needed.

Publication decisions
The editors of the Editorial Board of Vocational: Journal of Educational Technology are responsible for deciding which articles to publish. The validity of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive the decision. The editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and constrained by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions.

Our commitment to ethical publishing extends to every stage—from authorship and data integrity to peer review and conflict of interest management. We are proud to uphold these standards, ensuring that the research we publish contributes to the academic community with the highest level of trust and credibility.

Authors

Authorship

All listed authors must have contributed substantially to the submitted work and share collective responsibility for the entire manuscript. Authorship must accurately reflect individual contributions. Where appropriate, non-author contributors (e.g., translators, proofreaders, layout editors) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section.

According to the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) guidelines, authors must specify their contributions by selecting from various predefined roles that accurately reflect each author's input to the research and manuscript preparation (Liz Allen et al., 2019). Further details on these roles and how to report them can be found in the Journal’s Template.

The journal generally accepts a maximum of six authors per manuscript, unless a compelling reason justifies more. Compelling reasons may include interdisciplinary studies requiring expertise from multiple domains. During submission, all authors should use their academic email addresses. All authors must agree upon the authorship order before submission, and changes to authorship are not allowed after acceptance unless approved by the editor and all authors.

All authors submitting a manuscript confirm their understanding and adherence to the journal's ethical guidelines. Manuscripts must be original contributions that significantly add to the existing body of knowledge and be free from plagiarism. Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may that may affect the integrity of the research.

Corresponding Author (CA) Responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for all communication between the journal and the other authors during the editorial and publication process. The CA's duties include:

  • Primary Contact: Coordinating with the editorial team and disseminating manuscript revisions and other communications to co-authors.
  • Accurate Metadata: Ensuring that accurate author information (name, affiliation, contributions) is provided in the journal system. Changes to metadata after submission require editorial approval.
  • Final Proof Review: Review the manuscript's final proof for typographical errors, misspelled names, or incorrect affiliations before publication.
  • Availability and Timely Response: Maintain communication through an active academic email account and promptly respond to editorial queries.
  • Copyright and Licensing: Confirm that all co-authors approve the manuscript content and ensure permissions are obtained in writing for any copyrighted material. Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International (CC BY) license.
  • Post-Acceptance Changes: Changes to authorship are not allowed after acceptance unless approved by the editor and all authors.

Declaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing

If authors use generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies during the writing process, these tools should only be used to improve the readability and language of the manuscript. These technologies must be under human supervision and control, and authors must carefully review and edit the output, as AI-generated content can sound authoritative but may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

AI and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors or cited as contributors, as authorship implies responsibility and accountability, which can only be attributed to humans.

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of their manuscript before the References section. This statement should be placed in a new section titled "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process."

The statement should read as follows:

"During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [TOOL/SOFTWARE] to assist in improving the readability, language, and overall structure of the manuscript. Following the use of this tool, the author(s) thoroughly reviewed and edited the content, ensuring its accuracy and integrity. The author(s) take full responsibility for the content and conclusions presented in the published article."

Note: AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

Generative AI Images

The use of generative AI tools for creating images and visual content is not permitted, except in cases where the images are legally acquired through agencies with a contractual agreement with the journal or if the images are directly relevant to articles discussing AI technology. All AI-generated images must be labelled "Generated by AI" within the image field to ensure transparency and ethical adherence.

Plagiarism and Data Integrity

Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited. Authors must ensure that the submitted manuscript is original and has not been previously published. Plagiarism includes verbatim copying, paraphrasing without citation, and the use of images, graphs, or figures without permission. All sources must be cited appropriately.

Data must also be accurate, verifiable, and reflect the research results. Falsified data, whether invented or manipulated, is not allowed. Authors found guilty of plagiarism or data fabrication will face consequences in line with COPE guidelines. For further details, refer to our complete Plagiarism Policy. Authors must retain raw data and be prepared to provide it upon request by the editorial board.

Data Availability Statement

This section should specify where the data supporting the findings can be accessed. An apparent reason should be provided if the data cannot be shared. This promotes transparency and follows best practices in data sharing, creating a clear link between the study's results and the evidence. If your data are in a repository, include links and identifiers. This should be clearly stated if data sharing is restricted, such as for participant privacy.

Research on Humans

Experimental research involving humans must have approval from the relevant ethics committee and adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Authors must confirm ethical approval before conducting research, and the ethics committee approval number must be included in the manuscript.

Participants included in the study must have their privacy protected and should not be identifiable. Authors are responsible for anonymizing or processing personally identifiable information (e.g., names, clinical images, videos, personal data, health information) to prevent identification.

Informed Consent

If the manuscript contains clinical data or images involving human subjects, authors must secure written informed consent from the subjects. A copy of this consent must be provided to the editorial team before manuscript review. The manuscript must also state that written informed consent was obtained for all information disclosed regarding human subjects.

Reviewers

Review Process

All manuscript submissions undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and a plagiarism check using Turnitin. Manuscripts not immediately rejected due to ethical concerns, plagiarism, or scope mismatch will be assigned to a handling editor to continue the peer review process.

The journal employs a double-anonymized peer review system, where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed to ensure impartial and unbiased review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the submitted topic. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and verified by the editor through sources such as ORCID, Scopus ID, Web of Science Researcher ID, Google Scholar, or CV verification. Typically, reviewers are authors who have previously published in this journal or are recognized experts in the field. For more details, refer to our Peer Review Process and Peer Review Policy.

Review Timeline

Once assigned, reviewers have two weeks to respond to the invitation and an additional three weeks to complete the review, allowing a total of five weeks for the review process. If a reviewer cannot meet this timeline, they should promptly notify the editorial team. Reviewers must adhere to the journal's Review Guidelines and complete the official review form. Reviewers should submit a clear recommendation—accept, reject, or request revisions—and may attach additional reports to support their evaluation.

Authors may suggest reviewers; however, the final decision rests with the editor. The selection of reviewers proposed by the authors must be based on reasonable grounds and free of conflicts of interest. Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers if a potential conflict of interest exists, but the final decision remains with the editor. Any attempt to manipulate or falsify reviewer information may result in manuscript rejection and an ethical investigation following COPE guidelines.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Therefore, they are expected to review manuscripts with the highest ethical standards. Reviewers must conduct their assessments fairly, objectively, and on time, ensuring that clear arguments support all criticisms. The review must be free of personal bias, and reviewers must not use any unpublished information from the manuscript for personal gain. All information obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and not shared with third parties without the journal's explicit permission.

In some instances, a potential conflict of interest may exist, such as personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors, research, or funding institutions. In that case, the reviewer must notify the handling editor immediately and decline the review. Reviewers are also responsible for reporting any suspicion of ethical violations, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, to the handling editor for further investigation.

Reviewers are expected to keep their personal and professional information and areas of expertise up to date in their journal profiles so that editors can select the most suitable reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers should only accept review assignments if they are confident that no conflicts of interest—personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious—will affect their objectivity and fairness.

Reviewers must respond to review invitations within the given time frame, regardless of whether they accept or decline the assignment. They must complete the review by the journal's deadline if they accept. If reviewers suspect any misconduct in the manuscript, they should report it to the handling editor immediately.

Reviewer Duties

  • Confidentiality and Ethics: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained during the review process and not use it for personal gain. Without the journal's explicit permission, reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished details from manuscripts.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must ensure that there are no competing interests that could affect the objectivity of their review. If a conflict of interest is identified after accepting the assignment, they must inform the editor immediately and withdraw from the review.
  • Objective and Fair Review: Reviewers must provide honest, objective, and constructive feedback on manuscripts and support their criticisms with relevant and robust arguments. Any recommendation—accept, reject, or request revisions—must be accompanied by clear and logical reasons.
  • Reporting Ethical Misconduct: If reviewers suspect any misconduct or ethical violation in the manuscript, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, they must report it to the handling editor for further investigation following COPE guidelines. Reviewers must not conduct independent investigations of suspected misconduct.

Editors

Editors are responsible for making high-standard editorial decisions in line with ethical guidelines. Manuscripts will be accepted if their subject aligns with the journal's focus, they contain no significant technical errors, the English used is acceptable, and no ethical issues have been raised by either the editor or reviewers. All acceptance decisions are made transparently and objectively based on evaluating the manuscript's quality and relevance.

  • Manuscript Acceptance: Manuscripts are accepted if all publication criteria are met, including alignment with the journal’s focus, absence of technical errors, and no ethical issues.
  • Requesting Revisions: If some conditions are unmet but can be resolved with minor adjustments, revisions will be requested. Editors will review whether the author’s revisions adequately address the reviewers’ comments.
  • Post-Revision Evaluation: Manuscripts are only accepted after all required conditions have been fulfilled, either in the initial manuscript or through the revision process.

If an author disagrees with a reviewer’s comments, the author should first provide a clear and respectful rebuttal addressing the points of disagreement. This process allows for constructive dialogue between the author and the reviewer, promoting transparency and fairness in the review process.

If the disagreement remains unresolved after the rebuttal, the author may then contact the Editor-in-Chief (EiC). The EiC will reassess both the manuscript and the review in question and may choose to seek additional input from other reviewers if necessary. The EiC is responsible for making the final decision, ensuring that it is based on an objective and fair evaluation of the manuscript.

Ethical Concerns

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) is the main point of contact for ethical concerns, appeals, and complaints. Exception: Complaints regarding misconduct by the EiC should be directed to the Executive Editor. The EiC is fully responsible for final decisions regarding article acceptance, rejection, correction, and retraction. Anyone raising ethical concerns should contact the EiC immediately, who will initiate an investigation. The EiC may contact the authors' institution, employers, or funding agencies, involve other editors, and seek advice from external experts or institutions. After investigation, the EiC will decide whether the article should be corrected or retracted.

Corrections

Minor corrections like typographical errors will be transparently made and noted with a correction statement. Corrections will be reflected directly in the document, and an editorial note will be provided to inform readers of the changes. Relevant literature databases will be notified to reflect these corrections in their records.

Retractions

Article retraction is reserved for works with serious flaws, such as unethical research, plagiarism, or unreliable results (due to miscalculation, experimental errors, data fabrication, or falsification), or where findings have been published without proper attribution or permission to re-publish. Retracted articles will be removed from the journal's article page, but the title and author names will remain listed, preceded by "RETRACTED:". The article's DOI will remain active, and a notice explaining who retracted the article and the reasons for retraction will be added.

The journal does not charge fees for corrections or retractions. Please see our Article Withdrawal Policy for more detailed information on the article withdrawal, retraction, or correction process.

References:

COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE position statement. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author?ct=t(member-insight-ai-feb-2023)

Elsevier. The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier