Publication Ethics

Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. JrTP adheres to the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the ethical expectations of indexing databases. This statement delineates the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher--Kathmandu University School of Education, ensuring integrity.

1. Ethical Guidelines for Research

The Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research. Authors submitting manuscripts to JrTP must ensure that their research adheres to the following ethical principles, which align with COPE guidelines and internationally recognized best practices. JrTP ensures ethical integrity and fosters trust within the scholarly community.

1.1. Research Integrity

Honesty: Researchers must present their findings truthfully and accurately, ensuring that no data is fabricated, falsified, or manipulated.
Transparency: The research design, methodology, and results must be described in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility and validation by others.
Accountability: Researchers are responsible for ensuring the integrity and accuracy of their work at all stages of the research and publication process.

1.2. Ethical Approval

Human and Animal Research: Studies involving human participants or animals must comply with national and international ethical standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant institutional guidelines.
Ethics and/or Research Committee Approval: Authors must obtain approval from an appropriate ethics review board and/or research committee and include a compliance statement in their manuscript.
Vulnerable Populations: Research involving children, individuals with disabilities, or other vulnerable groups must have explicit ethical approval and demonstrate sensitivity to participants’ needs.

1.3. Informed Consent

Participant Awareness: Authors must ensure that participants are fully informed about the purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits of the study.
Voluntary Participation: Participation must be voluntary, and participants must have the option to withdraw at any time without consequences.
Written Documentation: Informed consent must be obtained in writing and explicitly stated in the manuscript.

1.4. Privacy and Confidentiality

Anonymity: Participants’ personal information must be anonymized or pseudonymized to ensure privacy.
Secure Data Handling: Authors must handle all data securely to protect participants’ identities and sensitive information.
Disclosure: Personal or identifiable information should not be published unless explicit consent has been obtained from the participants. If the name and other identities are identified, the authors must obtain consent to publish their names in the article.

1.5. Avoiding Harm

Minimizing Risk: Authors must design their studies to minimize physical, psychological, social, or financial harm to participants.
Safety Measures: Researchers should implement appropriate measures to mitigate risks and address any adverse events that may arise during the study.

1.6. Avoidance of Misconduct

Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that all work is original and appropriately cite the work of others. Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited.
Fabrication and Falsification: Data or findings must not be fabricated or altered to mislead readers or reviewers.
Misleading Statements: Researchers must avoid making unsupported or exaggerated claims in their manuscripts.

1.7. Data Accessibility

Data Availability: Authors must make their raw data available upon request by reviewers or editors to validate their findings.
Transparency: Include a Data Availability Statement in the manuscript, indicating where and how the data can be accessed or explaining any restrictions on data sharing.

1.8. Use of Generative AI in Research

Transparency in GenAI and/or AI Usage: Any use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Gemini) in the research process must be explicitly disclosed in the manuscript, including how the tools were used (e.g., for language editing or analysis assistance). For more information, read Dahal, N. (2024). How can generative AI (GenAI) enhance or hinder qualitative studies? A critical appraisal from South Asia, Nepal. The Qualitative Report, 29(3), 722-733. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6637
Human Oversight: GenAI or AI tools may assist in the research process but cannot replace critical decision-making, ethical responsibilities, or intellectual contributions from the authors.

1.9. Research Misconduct

Handling Allegations: Allegations of research misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, inappropriate experimentation, or data manipulation) will be thoroughly investigated by the editorial board under COPE guidelines.
Sanctions: Proven misconduct cases may result in the rejection of the manuscript, retraction of published work, or a ban on future submissions to the Journal.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors play a significant role in maintaining the integrity and credibility of academic publishing. The Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) outlines the following ethical responsibilities for authors based on COPE guidelines:

2.1. Originality and Plagiarism

Original Work: Authors must ensure that the manuscript is their original work. Reproducing or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s work without proper citation constitutes plagiarism and is strictly prohibited.
Proper Attribution: Authors must appropriately cite all sources, including their own prior work, to avoid self-plagiarism.
Plagiarism Screening: Submitted manuscripts will undergo plagiarism and AI detection, and any identified unethical behavior may result in rejection.

2.2. Data Integrity

Accuracy: Data presented in the manuscript must be accurate, complete, and free from manipulation or falsification.
Transparency: Authors must provide sufficient details about their methods and results or outcomes to enable reproducibility by other researchers.
Data Retention: Authors may be asked to provide raw data during the review process and should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

2.3. Ethical Research Practices

Compliance with Ethical Standards: Research involving human or animal subjects must comply with relevant ethical guidelines, including obtaining approval from institutional ethics committees.
Informed Consent: Authors must ensure that informed consent has been obtained from all participants, and this should be stated in the manuscript.
Respect for Privacy: Identifiable personal information about participants must not be disclosed unless explicitly approved.

2.4. Authorship

Criteria for Authorship: Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, interpretation, and funding of the study. All contributors who meet these criteria should be listed as authors.
Acknowledgment of Contributions: Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship but provided other support should be acknowledged appropriately.
Approval of Final Manuscript: All listed authors must have read and approved the final manuscript before submission to publication.
Changes in Authorship: All authors must justify and approve any changes to the authorship after submission.

2.5. Conflict of Interest

Disclosure: Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence the research. Examples include funding sources, employment, consultancy, or equity ownership.
Transparency: A statement of conflicts of interest should be included in the manuscript during the submission.

2.6. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submissions

No Duplicate Submissions: Manuscripts submitted to JrTP must not be under consideration elsewhere or previously published.
Multiple Publications: PPublishing the same or substantially similar content in multiple journals is unethical and will result in bans for future submissions by the same author(s).

2.7. Reporting Errors

Correction of Errors: Authors are responsible for promptly notifying the journal editor if significant errors or inaccuracies are discovered in their published work.
Cooperation: Authors must cooperate with the editorial board to issue corrections, retractions, or errata when necessary.

2.8. Use of Generative AI

Transparency: Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in preparing the manuscript in a dedicated section titled "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies."
Human Oversight: GenAI or AI tools may be used to enhance language and readability but must not replace intellectual contributions. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their manuscripts.

2.9. Compliance with Journal Policies

Formatting and Submission: Authors must adhere to the journal's submission guidelines regarding structure, formatting, and length. See more at https://jrtp.kusoed.edu.np/home/author-guidelines
Ethical Compliance: Authors must confirm that their manuscript complies with the journal’s publication ethics and COPE standards.

3. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors of the Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) play a significant role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and ethical standards of the journal’s publications. In line with COPE guidelines and the expectations of indexing databases, the following responsibilities outline the ethical and professional conduct required from editors.

3.1. Editorial Independence

Objective Decision-Making: Editorial decisions must be based solely on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without influence from external factors such as personal relationships or political or financial considerations.
Freedom from Bias: Editors must ensure that authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views do not influence the review process or publication decisions.
No Commercial Influence: Advertising, sponsorships, or other commercial interests must not affect editorial decisions.

3.2. Confidentiality

Preservation of Anonymity: Editors must ensure that all communications and materials related to the submission and review process are treated confidentially.
Restricted Disclosure: Editors should only share manuscript information with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial staff, or the publisher, as necessary.

3.3. Managing the Peer Review Process

Selection of Reviewers: Editors are responsible for selecting suitable and unbiased reviewers with relevant expertise to evaluate manuscripts.
Fair Review: Editors must ensure that the peer review process is objective, double-blind, and free from undue influence.
Timeliness: Editors should strive to ensure timely communication with authors and reviewers to maintain an efficient publication timeline.

3.4. Handling Conflicts of Interest

Editor Conflicts: If an editor has a conflict of interest (e.g., personal, professional, or financial relationships with the author or institution), they must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript and assign it to another editor.
Reviewer Conflicts: Editors must verify that reviewers do not have conflicts of interest that could compromise their evaluation.

3.5. Ensuring Ethical Compliance

Plagiarism Detection: Editors ensure all manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using appropriate tools.
Research Ethics: Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must comply with ethical guidelines, and editors should verify that authors provide evidence of ethics committee approval and informed consent.
AI Usage: Editors must ensure that authors declare any use of AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript and that such tools are used ethically.

3.6. Addressing Ethical Misconduct

Investigating Allegations: If allegations of ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, double submission) arise, editors must follow COPE guidelines to investigate and address these issues transparently.
Author Communication: Authors must be allowed to respond to allegations before decisions are made.
Corrective Actions: If misconduct is confirmed, editors should take appropriate actions, such as issuing corrections, retractions, or removal of the article, and notify relevant parties (e.g., authors, institutions, and publishers).

3.7. Retractions and Corrections

Corrections: Editors must ensure that errors in published works are corrected promptly through errata or corrigenda.
Retractions: Articles that contain significant errors or ethical violations should be retracted, with a clear explanation provided to the readers.

3.8. Quality Assurance

Consistency and Clarity: Editors are responsible for ensuring that all published content meets the journal’s quality standards in terms of language, formatting, and technical accuracy.
Relevance: Editors must ensure that the journal’s content aligns with its aims and scope, contributing to advancements in the field of pedagogy and education.

3.9. Continuous Improvement

Regular Policy Updates: Editors must regularly review and update the journal's editorial policies to reflect best practices and evolving standards in scholarly publishing.
Feedback Mechanisms: Editors should encourage feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers to improve the journal's processes and policies.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in the scholarly publishing process by ensuring the quality, integrity, and academic merit of submitted manuscripts. In line with COPE guidelines and the standards of indexing databases, the Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) outlines the following responsibilities for reviewers:

4.1. Confidentiality

Strict Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the editorial team except as authorized by the editor.
No Use of Information: Reviewers must not use any information or ideas obtained during the review process for personal gain or to discredit others.

4.2. Objectivity and Fairness

Impartial Evaluation: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with judgments based solely on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field.
Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and unacceptable.

4.3. Expertise and Competence

Appropriate Assignments: Reviewers should accept only those manuscripts for review that fall within their area of expertise and for which they feel competent to provide an informed evaluation.
Declining Requests: If a reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript or cannot provide a review within the stipulated time, they should notify the editor promptly and decline the assignment.

4.4. Timeliness

Meeting Deadlines: Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If unforeseen delays occur, reviewers must inform the editor as soon as possible to avoid disruptions to the publication process.

4.5. Ethical Considerations

Identification of Ethical Issues: Reviewers must alert the editor to potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or ethical violations in research practices.
Compliance with Standards: Reviewers should ensure that studies involving human or animal subjects adhere to ethical standards and that authors provide evidence of ethical approval and informed consent.

4.6. Acknowledgment of Sources

Citing Relevant Work: Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and recommend inclusion where appropriate.
Flagging Overlaps: Notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published works they know.

4.7. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Disclosure of Conflicts: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, whether financial, personal, or professional, that could compromise their objectivity.
Declining Biased Reviews: If a potential conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the assignment and inform the editor.

4.8. Review Quality

Thorough and Clear Reviews: Provide a detailed evaluation that addresses the manuscript’s methodology, results, discussion, and overall impact.
Specific Recommendations: Clearly articulate whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected, with reasons to support the recommendation.

4.9. Use of Generative AI Tools

Disclosure of AI Use: If generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Gemini) are used in the review process, reviewers must disclose their use and ensure that the feedback is accurate and ethical.
Human Oversight: GenAI and AI tools must be used only to enhance clarity or format comments, not to replace critical evaluation or intellectual contributions.

5. Addressing Ethical Concerns and Article Modifications

The Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) is committed to addressing ethical concerns and handling requests for withdrawal, replacement, or removal of published papers transparently, consistently, and ethically. Below is a detailed process for handling such issues:

5.1. Withdrawal of Published Articles

A published article may be withdrawn if the authors identify significant errors or inaccuracies. The process for withdrawal is as follows:

Request and Evaluation: Authors must submit a formal withdrawal request, explaining the errors. The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board will evaluate the request through discussion with the authors.
Database Removal: The article will be removed from the journal’s database if approved.
Online Notice: The following phrase or similar notice will appear below the paper title on the journal's website:
(This paper was withdrawn due to significant technical errors.)

5.2. Replacement of Published Articles

Authors may request to replace a published article with an updated version if significant advances or corrections are required. The replacement process involves:

Submission and Review: At least three independent reviewers must submit and evaluate the updated version. The editorial board and Editor-in-Chief will ensure the advances are substantial.
Database Update: The updated article will replace the original in the journal’s database if approved.
Online Notice: A note will appear below the article title on the journal's website - (This article was replaced with an updated version)
Original Version Archive: The original version will be archived separately and made available upon request for transparency.
Replacement Limitation: Articles can only be replaced once and only for technical improvements.

5.3. Removal of Published Papers

A published paper may be removed if significant ethical violations, such as plagiarism or fraudulent data, are identified. The process is as follows:

Investigation: The editorial board and Editor-in-Chief will thoroughly investigate allegations of ethical violations, providing authors an opportunity to respond.
Removal Decision: The paper will be removed from the journal’s database if confirmed.
Online Notice: The following phrase or similar notice will appear below the paper title on the journal's website:
(This paper was removed due to ethical violations, such as plagiarism.)

6. Ethical Violations and Penalties

6.1. Double Submission

If double submission (submitting the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously) is identified:

The review process will be terminated immediately.
Reviewers, editorial board members, and authors will be informed of the violation.
All authors involved will be blacklisted and banned from submitting to JrTP for five years.

6.2. Double Publication

If double publication (publishing the same or very similar paper in multiple journals) is confirmed:

The duplication will be reported to the authors, editorial board, and the publisher of the other journal.
The paper will be removed following the "Removal" process.
All authors involved will be blacklisted and banned from submitting to JrTP for five years.

6.3. Plagiarism

If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected:

The issue will be reported to the authors, editorial board, and the publisher of the plagiarized material.
The paper will be removed following the "Removal" process.
All authors involved will be blacklisted and banned from submitting to JrTP for six years.

7. Complaint Policy

The Journal of Transformative Praxis (JrTP) defines a complaint as dissatisfaction with a perceived failure during the submission, review, or publication. Examples of complaints include but are not limited to:

Authorship disputes
Plagiarism allegations
Duplicate or simultaneous submissions
Research errors or fraud
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Reviewer bias or harmful conduct
GenAI and AI-generated results

7.1. Complaint Submission

Complaints should be sent via email to jrtp@kusoed.edu.np. Whenever possible, complaints should be directed to the person with whom the complainant has already been in contact.

7.2. Response and Resolution

Complaints will be acknowledged within three or less working days.
A full response will be provided within four weeks, or interim updates will be shared if resolution takes longer.
If unsatisfied, the complainant may escalate the issue to the Editor-in-Chief or the executive editor, whose decision will be final.

All of the principles adhered to by authors, editors, and reviewers contribute to the integrity, quality, and transparency of the research published in the Journal of Transformative Praxis and contribute to the advancement of scholarly communication and rigorous academic research. Failure to meet these responsibilities may result in the rejection of the manuscript or additional sanctions as outlined in the journal's ethical policies.