TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication
Final Version (March 2015)
Tuning Journal for Higher Education (TJHE), Tuning Journal in short, is an international journal publishing in English original research studies and reviews in all aspects of competence-based, student-centred, and outcome-oriented education reforms at university level across the globe. It is published by the University of Deusto’s Publications department on behalf of the International Tuning Academy (Tuning Academy in short), a jointly managed project of the Universities of Deusto (Spain) and Groningen (The Netherlands). The Journal, essentially an open access, online and peer-reviewed publication, is committed to maintain the highest ethical standards. Hence, the involvement of any stakeholder in any function connected with TJHE, including acting as an editor, the reviewing of manuscripts, the management and production of the Journal and the authorship and submission of manuscripts implies acceptance of and adherence to TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication.
* The term Editor(s) as used below refers to Editors, Advisory Editors, Guest Editors, and Editorial Board members when delegated to serve in an editorial capacity.
1. Publishers, Managing Board, Editorial Board
1.2. The Editorial Board is responsible for setting policy, appointing the Editor and Advisory Editors of the Journal.
1.3. The Editor is responsible for ensuring that publication policies set by the Editorial Board are carried out.
1.5. The Managing Board is responsible for the commercial management of the Journal and appointing a Managing Editor.
1.6. The Managing Editor is responsible for ensuring that the commercial policies set by the Management Board are carried out.
1.7. Members of the Editorial or Management Boards or employees and, or members of the Tuning Academy should not intervene in or comment on editorial decisions on individual manuscripts.
2. Editors, Advisory Editors, and Guest Editors
2.1. Editors of the Journal and Specialist Volumes are expected to carry out editorial duties in a manner consonant with policies set by the Editorial Board.
2.2. The Editor has full responsibility, which he/she may delegate to an Advisory Editor, for editorial and technical decisions on Journal and specialist volume content.
2.3. Editors will give manuscripts unbiased consideration.
2.4. Editors should process manuscripts expeditiously.
2.5. The Editor has sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Manuscripts should have peer review, but the Editor may reject any manuscript for other causes (inappropriate for journal, clearly of poor quality, contents previously published elsewhere, etc.)
2.6. The Editor should not disclose information about submitted manuscripts except to reviewers, Advisory Editors, Editorial Board members, and staff at the University of Deusto’s Publications department. Information about a manuscript may be shared after electronic publication (e.g., news releases or inclusion in a list of contents, etc.).
2.7. Manuscripts submitted by an Editor should be delegated to another Advisory Editor or Editorial Board member.
2.8. An Editor should not handle manuscripts for which there is a real or perceived conflict of interest. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, employer or employee, close friend, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had a past or on-going academic controversy, or situations where the Editor could stand to gain or lose economically or in any other way by publication or rejection of the manuscript. Editorial responsibility should be delegated to another Editor, Advisory Editor, or Editorial Board member.
2.9. An Editor must not use information, data, theories, or interpretations of submitted manuscript in her/his own work unless that manuscript is in press, published or the author has given permission to do so.
2.10. If an Editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a publication is/are erroneous, he/she should facilitate publication of a report (e.g., correction, follow-up manuscript, or other appropriate means) pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by the original author. The original publication does not disappear from the published record.
3. Authors and Co-authors
3.1. Manuscripts should contain original, new results, data, ideas and/or interpretations not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere (including electronic media and databases).
3.2. Authors should be encouraged to avoid fragmentation of their work where practical, so that the submitted manuscript is as comprehensive and authoritative as possible.
3.3. Authors should inform the Editor of related manuscripts under consideration elsewhere and provide copies if requested.
3.4. Fabrication of data, results, selective reporting of data, theft of intellectual property of others, and plagiarism are unethical practices and unacceptable.
3.5. Information obtained privately (e.g., in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) should be avoided as it is not in the public domain and is thus unverifiable. If considered necessary, it should not be used or reported in a manuscript without explicit permission from the party with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services (e.g., refereeing manuscripts or grant applications) should be treated similarly.
3.6. Manuscripts will contain proper citation of works by others, especially publications of the original hypotheses, ideas, and/or data upon which manuscript is based or addresses.
a) Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the work reported in a manuscript; others who have contributed should be acknowledged;
b) Author order should be agreed on by all authors as should any changes in authors and order that occur while the manuscript is under review or revision. Changes in authorship must be submitted to the Editor in writing and must be signed by all authors involved.
c) Authors and co-authors should review and ensure the accuracy and validity of results prior to submission; co-authors should have opportunity to review manuscript before submission.
3.8. Authors should reveal to the Editor any potential conflict of interest (e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript. The authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would affect the publication of information in a submitted manuscript.
3.9. Authors are encouraged to disclose major funding sources (e.g., government agencies, private foundations, private industry, and universities) for reported research.
4.1. A reviewer should disclose real or perceived conflict of interests to the Editor before agreeing to write a review. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, close friend, employer or employee, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had a past or on-going scientific controversy, or situations where the reviewer could stand to gain or lose economically or in any other way by publication or rejection of the manuscript. The Editor will decide if the conflict is severe enough to prevent the reviewer from writing a fair, objective review.
4.2. A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if she/he feels technically unqualified, if a timely review cannot be done, or if the manuscript is from a competitor with whom the reviewer has had an acrimonious professional relationship or a conflict of interest as defined above (section 4.1).
4.3. Reviewers should be encouraged, but not required, to sign reviews. The Editor will preserve anonymity of reviewers should a reviewer elect to remain anonymous.
4.4. Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential.
4.5. Reviewers must ask the Editor for permission to discuss the paper with others for specific advice, giving names and reasons for such consultation.
4.6. Reviewers must not pass the manuscript to another to carry out the review without permission from the Editor.
4.7. Reviewers must not use information, data, theories, or interpretations of the manuscript in their own work unless that manuscript is in press, published or the author has given permission to do so.
4.8. Reviewers should clearly support and justify the basis for their review analysis.
4.9. Reviewers should alert the Editor to similar manuscripts published or under consideration for publication elsewhere in the event they are aware of such. However, it is the responsibility of the Editor, not the reviewer, to decide on the proper course of action once so informed.
5. Citation Manipulation
5.1. Citation manipulation is considered unethical. Manipulation may include adding citations not contributing to a manuscript’s content or solely aiming at increasing an author’s or a journal’s citations.
6.1. Suspected breaches of this policy may be handled by the Editor or may be forwarded to the Editorial Board for review and recommendation.
6.2. If an Editor is determined to have violated the TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication, the matter will be referred to the Editorial Board.
6.3. If an author is determined to have violated the TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication, TJHE reserves the right to impose sanctions, which may include restriction from further consideration of accepting the author’s work, retraction of a published paper, or withdrawal of a submitted paper.
Date: 16 March 2015
Approved by the TJHE Editorial Board and signed on behalf of the Tuning Academy by:
Director, Tuning Academy (Deusto)
Director, Tuning Academy (Groningen)
Many sources were consulted in preparation of these ethical guidelines. However, the Editorial Board of the TJHE would like to acknowledge in particular principles outlined in documents by C.O.P.E. (The Committee on Publication Ethics, http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) and the Geological Society of America (www.geosociety.org/pubs/ethics.htm).