Ethics and Malpractice Policy

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement1

By submitting an article/ report to this journal you agree to comply with the following Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement


The two editors of the International Journal of Emotional Education are responsible for deciding which of the papers/ reports submitted to the journal will be published. The publishing decision is based on the recommendation of the journal's reviewers. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. They may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


The Editors, Reviewers and any Editorial Staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the Editors' own research without the express written consent of the author/s.



Contribution to editorial decisions

Papers/ reports will be published in the Journal after peer reviewing, making use of blind review process. The reviewers advise the Editors in making the editorial decision, and the latter communicate with authors, as required, and indicate the necessary amendments to improve the quality of the paper/ report. The reviewers do not know the author's identity and the reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and passed on to the author/s anonymously. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential, known only to the editors.


The Editors are committed to provide timely review to the author/s. If a selected reviewer feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be difficult, should notify the Editors and excuse himself/herself from the review process. 


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

The editors and reviewers are required to evaluate papers/ reports objectively, based on the content. Personal criticism of the author/s is inappropriate and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author/s, while statements querying the originality of part or whole manuscript should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also draw the Editors' attention regarding any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have any conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.



Reporting standards

Authors of papers/ reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper/ report. A paper/report should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. The author/s must clearly declare any conflict of interest at the end of the manuscript. Reviews and other articles should also be accurate and objective, consistently citing the work on which they are based.

Data access and retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if requested, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and that the work and/or words of others is appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Forms of plagiarism include the use of material contained in another paper/ report, of the same author/s or some other author/s, with cosmetic changes as a new paper/ report; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper/report without acknowledging source, and claiming results from research conducted by others.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

In general, an author should not publish papers/ reports 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 behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration to another journal a previously published paper, or the one under consideration with another journal, without the written consent of the two journals involved.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit and written permission from the source.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship of papers/ reports should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper/ report, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper/ report and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Ethical approval

The author/s must clearly state in their manuscript that the data collection process reported in the paper/ report has followed the standard ethical procedures as required in the particular context and place where the data was collected.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their results. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper/ report. If the editors or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper/ report or provide evidence to the editors of the correctness of the original paper/ report.


 1 These guidelines are adapted from the Scottish Universities Medical Journal