IJELP (International Journal of English Language and Pedagogy) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, integrity, and transparency in all its activities. This document outlines the responsibilities and expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. It is based on international best practices (e.g., COPE guidelines).

Roles & Responsibilities

1. Editors

• Decision-making: The Editor-in-Chief (and editorial board) has the final responsibility for deciding which manuscripts are published, guided by the journal’s scope, quality, originality, relevance, and ethical standards.

• Fairness & Impartiality: Manuscripts are evaluated on intellectual merit without regard to authors’ gender, ethnicity, religion, affiliation, or status.

• Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts must be treated confidentially. Editors and editorial staff must not disclose or share manuscript details outside of the evaluation process.

• Conflict of Interest: Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have conflicts (e.g., competing, collaborative, or personal relationships with authors).

• Use of Unpublished Material: Editors must not use or appropriate unpublished material for their own research without explicit permission from the author(s).

• Corrections & Retractions: If significant errors, misconduct, or ethical violations are discovered pre- or post-publication, the editors must take prompt action (e.g., correction notices, retractions).

• Oversight: The editorial team should monitor for plagiarism, duplicate submissions, and other ethical misconduct via tools (e.g., plagiarism-detection software) during initial screening.

2.2 Reviewers

• Contribution to Decision: Reviewers play a critical role in advising editors on acceptance, revision, or rejection, and in helping authors improve the manuscript.

• Promptness: Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they can complete them within the agreed timeline; otherwise, they should decline promptly.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents, not to share, copy, or use their content for personal purposes.

• Objectivity & Tone: Reviews should be impartial, constructive, respectful, and free from personal bias or ad hominem remarks.

• Citations & Recognition: Reviewers should point out relevant prior work that authors may have omitted and notify editors of any overlap or similarity with existing literature.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should decline manuscripts where there is a conflict (e.g. competitive research, personal or institutional connections).

• No Misuse of Privileged Information: Reviewers must not exploit knowledge gained during peer review for personal advantage (e.g., publishing similar work ahead).

2.3 Authors

• Originality & Plagiarism: Submitted work must be original, not published or under consideration elsewhere. Proper citation and acknowledgement must be given to prior literature. Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) is unacceptable.

• Authorship & Contribution: All listed authors should have made significant contributions to conception, design, execution, or interpretation. All co-authors should approve the final version and agree to its submission.

• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial, personal, or other relationships that could bias their work.

• Ethical Compliance: If the research involves humans, animals, or sensitive data, authors must follow relevant ethical standards (e.g., institutional review board, informed consent).

• Data & Reproducibility: Authors should provide data, methods, and supporting material, where feasible, to allow replication. They must accurately present findings, without fabrication or falsification.

• Corrections & Retractions: If authors discover errors or misconduct in their published work, they must notify the editor promptly and cooperate in issuing corrections, errata, or retractions.

• Acknowledgements: Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria may be acknowledged, but without implying authorship.

• Use of AI/Tools (if applicable): If AI or generative tools are used (e.g., for language editing), authors should disclose their use. AI tools should not be credited as authors.

2.4 Publisher & Journal

• Independence: Advertising, reprint purchases, or other commercial interests must not influence editorial decisions.

• Oversight & Support: The publisher should support the editorial office in ensuring ethical practices (e.g., plagiarism detection, archiving, and publishing corrections).

• Transparency: Journal policies (ethics, peer review, corrections) should be publicly accessible and clearly communicated.

• Archiving & Access: Ensure long-term access and preservation of published content.

• Handling Misconduct: The publisher should assist in investigating allegations, maintaining confidentiality while ensuring due process, and imposing sanctions when necessary.

• Appeals: Provide a mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions or raise ethical concerns.

3. Screening & Handling Misconduct

• Plagiarism Checking: All submissions undergo a plagiarism check (e.g., with software). Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity may be desk-rejected or returned for revision.

• Duplicate / Redundant Publication: Submissions must not overlap substantially with prior publications. Redundant publication is unacceptable.

• Authorship Disputes: Editors should request documentation or statements from authors to resolve disputes.

• Allegations of Misconduct: On receiving credible claims (e.g. via whistleblower, reader, reviewer), the journal will investigate fairly, contact authors for explanation, and may involve the author’s institution if warranted.

• Correction, Retraction, or Expression of Concern: Based on the outcome, the journal may publish an erratum, corrigendum, retraction notice, or expression of concern in accordance with COPE guidelines.

• Sanctions: Sanctions could include rejection, a ban from future submissions, notification to institutions, or public disclosure of misconduct.

4. Ethical Use of AI / Generative Tools (optional / if relevant)

• AI tools may be used to assist with language polishing, formatting, or minor editorial tasks, but not for producing original scientific content or interpretation.

• Authors are required to disclose any use of AI tools in the manuscript (in the title page or cover letter).

• AI tools must not be listed as authors.

• Reviewers should not upload manuscripts under review to AI or external services that retain the content.

5. Publication Corrections & Retractions

• Erratum / Corrigendum: For minor errors that do not affect the main conclusions, corrections should be published and linked to the original article.

• Retraction: In cases of serious misconduct or invalid results, articles should be retracted, with a retraction notice explaining the reasons. The original article should be clearly marked as retracted.

• Expression of Concern: If an investigation is ongoing and evidence is inconclusive, an expression of concern may be issued to alert readers.

• Transparency: All corrections and retractions should be marked, dated, and permanently linked to the original.

6. Monitoring & Review

• The journal should periodically review its policies and practices, updating them as needed to align with evolving standards (e.g., COPE updates, best practices in open science).

• Editorial board members, reviewers, and authors should receive guidance or training in publication ethics.