Publishing and ethics
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Papers published in the Journal of Early Years Education must adhere to the professional and ethical guidelines set by the Editorial Board. Its publication and ethical guidelines are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, as well as the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME, 4th edition, 2022). When handling cases relating to research integrity and publication ethics, the editorial board applies COPE’s guidelines and decision-making flowcharts (COPE Flowcharts). All stakeholders contributing to the publication of a paper must agree to the standards of professional and ethical conduct expected.
The journal accepts only original scientific manuscripts for publication. Submitted manuscripts must not be under review by any other journal or publisher at the same time, nor may they have been previously published elsewhere. Redundant or duplicate publication, as well as the unjustified repetition of the same research findings, is not permitted.
Only those individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the design, execution or analysis of the research, or to the preparation of the manuscript, who have approved the final version submitted, and who accept responsibility for its content may be listed as authors. Individuals who have contributed to the research or the preparation of the manuscript in other ways may be listed in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section.
Duties of the Editors
The Editorial Board (hereafter: Editors) determines which contributions are published on the electronic platform of the Journal of Early Years Education. The board is responsible for the initial review of submitted papers, initiating the peer review process, evaluating the reviews, carrying out the editorial tasks required for publication and publishing papers accepted for publication. The Editors reserve the right to
(1) run papers through a plagiarism detection system (Turnitin),
(2) reject a manuscript for formal or substantive deficiencies before the review process has begun.
The publication of the manuscript and the editors’ ability to publish may also be limited by the laws on defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism currently in force. The plagiarism detection system (Turnitin) supports the editorial review process; however, the editorial team always makes the final decision on whether plagiarism has occurred, based on its professional judgement.
Fair play: The Editors will evaluate submitted manuscripts for their intellectual content, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or political affiliation of the authors.
Confidentiality: Editorial team shall not disclose any information about the manuscript submitted for publication to anyone other than the author, the proofreaders, potential proofreaders, other editorial consultants, or the publisher.
Publication and Conflict of Interest: Manuscripts accepted for publication will be published by the Editors. Papers awaiting publication but not yet published and results to be published may not be used by contributors in their research and publication activities.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations: Editorial team (in conjunction with the publisher) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or another note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
Corrections:
As a general principle, a published article is considered immutable. Corrections may only be issued if a substantial error is identified, provided it was made in good faith. If the error arises from the editing or production phase, an Erratum will be published with the author’s consent. If the author(s) are responsible for the error, a Corrigendum will be issued. Both Errata and Corrigenda are subject to the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion and must be associated with the original article.
Retraction:
In the rare instance that an article necessitates retraction, such as in cases of plagiarism or copyright violation, the Editor-in-Chief (in close cooperation with the editorial team) is authorised to render the decision (in accordance with COPE principles). In such instances, a Retraction Notice will be published, detailing the title and authors of the article along with the reason for the retraction, and will be linked to the original article online.
Plagiarism:
All instances of suspected or alleged plagiarism are addressed with utmost seriousness in accordance with the journal’s Ethical Principles. The Editor-in-Chief (in close cooperation with the editorial team) must investigate any suspicion of plagiarism to ascertain its occurrence, degree, and intent, or, in cases of minor infractions, whether it resulted from a good faith error (extensive plagiarism cannot be deemed as occurring in good faith, as it fundamentally violates the core principles of scholarly ethics). If plagiarism is minor and unintentional (i.e., a good faith error): for unpublished manuscripts, the author must rectify the error; for published articles, an Erratum is required. This indicates that any level of plagiarism in a published manuscript must be addressed through an Erratum. In instances of significant and/or intentional plagiarism (irrespective of its extent): for unpublished manuscripts, the author(s)’ institution(s) must be notified of the misconduct, and the author shall be prohibited from future publication in the journal; for published articles, the article must be retracted (as previously outlined) with a statement elucidating the rationale and crediting the original author. The original author and publisher must also be informed. The author(s)’ institution(s) must be apprised of the misconduct, and the author shall be barred from future publication in the journal.
Violating the journal’s policies on using Generative AI: Authors must adhere to the journal’s policies regarding the application of Generative AI in manuscript preparation. Authors are hereby notified that any errors arising from the use of Generative AI will be addressed in accordance with the nature of the error, and the involvement of AI in the process does not exempt authors from compliance with any established rules or ethical principles outlined above. If AI was used by the author in the preparation of the manuscript (e.g. translation or stylistic revision), the fact and the manner in which it was used must be stated in the manuscript.
Regulations on the use of generative AI: The Journal in accordance with COPE guidance does not accept manuscripts that mention any AI tool as a co-author or cite it as a source. Large language models may be regarded as legitimate instruments facilitating data analysis, used as a specified methodological tool. In these instances, the precise application of AI must be explained in the introduction or methodology section of the paper. When employing AI, it is imperative to recognise that publicly accessible AI tools do not satisfy the requisite standards for managing sensitive data.
AI tools are permissible for copy editing, specifically for grammar, tone, and style enhancement, provided that the final submitted manuscript undergoes thorough review by a human author. Consequently, the author assumes full responsibility for the content reviewed by a human author upon submission of the manuscript.
Please be aware that editors can use tools to detect text similarity, such as plagiarism checkers and AI-generated content identification.
Complaints and Appeals: Complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher should be submitted in writing and will be reviewed promptly by an independent ad-hoc committee to ensure impartiality. The process should guarantee confidentiality, fair investigation. The journal will communicate the outcomes to the complainants and takes necessary measures to prevent future occurrences.
The author has the right to object or appeal by a letter to the editor-in-chief, or publisher. The editor-in-chief is obliged to acquaint the team of associate editors with the authors’ appeal and after discussion the team of associate editors comes up with a final decision. In general, COPE’s Flowcharts on handling complaints and responding to possible misconduct /inappropriate behaviour will be followed. Legal disputes against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher are treated according to the laws of the Republic of Hungary.
Citation ethics: Editors and reviewers must not request the inclusion of references whose primary purpose is to artificially inflate citation metrics. Citation practice must always be based on the principle of academic justification.
The journal manages editorial and editorial board conflicts of interest through a transparent and well-documented procedure. If the Editor-in-Chief or any member of the editorial board is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, or if any personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship may constitute a potential conflict of interest, the individual concerned must promptly declare this and fully recuse themselves from the editorial handling and decision-making process. In such cases, the manuscript is assigned to an independent editor or guest editor who ensures an impartial and anonymous peer-review process. The journal guarantees that publication decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript, and all conflict-of-interest cases are formally recorded internally.
Responsibilities of the reviewers
Papers are evaluated by two independent and anonymous reviewers, who may be members of the Editorial Board but predominantly are external experts (the journal uses a double-blind peer-review system). The journal does not pay any honoraria for reviewing, but will provide a certificate of proofreading upon request. Publication of submitted manuscripts is subject to the reviewers’ opinions and, in the case of divergent editorial opinions, the Editor-in-Chief will decide whether to accept or reject the paper. Compliance with formal requirements is a prerequisite for the start of the peer review process.
Contribution to the editorial board’s decisions: the reviewer comments on the submitted manuscripts, recommends rejection or acceptance, and proposes changes and corrections for papers to be revised. The reviewer advises the editors if a substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any previously published paper of which the reviewer is aware is detected.
Accuracy and expertise: Reviewers are invited by the Editors. The reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers may request to be dismissed after the review process has started if they consider that the study under review is outside their research area, a conflict of interest exists, or they know that rapid peer review is impracticable. In the latter cases, the person requesting the exemption must notify the Editor-in-Chief and propose a new reviewer. The reviewer shall have 4 weeks from the date of acceptance of the review activity to complete the review.
Confidentiality: all manuscripts submitted for review must be treated confidentially by the reviewer, who is not allowed to consult others and may only cite the scientific results after publication.
Objectivity: the reviewers’ opinion must be objective. Criticism of the author’s person or identity is not acceptable. Peer reviewers must provide arguments to support their claims.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: if the reviewer obtains confidential information in the course of the review process, he/she must keep it confidential and not use it to his/her own advantage. Reviewers should not review manuscripts which present a conflict of interest with any of the authors or the author’s institution.
Responsibilities of the authors
Acceptance of manuscripts is subject to compliance with the publication and ethical guidelines. As the journal can only partially verify compliance with the guidelines, it is the author's responsibility to comply fully with them according to the standards set out below.
Principles of publication: authors should accurately describe the original research in their papers in a way that allows for critical discussion. Papers should adhere to the formal requirements of the journal, references should be cited, and data and results should be presented in a factual and accurate manner.
Originality and plagiarism: any form of plagiarism is unethical and unacceptable. Authors must ensure that their written work is entirely their own intellectual product. Where authors use the work and/or expressions of others, they must cite and quote appropriately. Editors will check the originality of all manuscripts submitted, however any Similarity Report submitted by the authors are welcome.
Multiple publication: It is unethical and unacceptable to publish a piece of writing with the same text and content in more than one journal.
Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release. If necessary, authors may publish a Data Availability Statement, which specifies the availability of the research data or any justified restrictions on access to it.
Ethical oversight: Authors of empirical research articles involving human participants and data, covering studies that entail the primary acquisition of personal data, should declare whether the participants provided informed consent and specify its form (written or verbal). The participant approval statement may be described in the section related to the Data and/or Methods or in the separate declaration. Authors shall anonymize or de-identify data if needed to protect participants' privacy and to comply with relevant data protection regulations. Authors shall adhere to strict data protection protocols, ensuring that all confidential information is securely stored and accessed only by authorized individuals.
Manuscripts must indicate whether the relevant authorized body dealing with research ethics issues (further referred to as the ethics committee) approval was obtained (or waived). (Especially in case of manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants and data, including vulnerable populations, covering studies that entail the primary acquisition of personal data.) The ethics committee decision shall be uploaded as part of the original submission. If research ethics approval does not pertain to your study/article, provide a simple statement document at submission – standard declaration such as "This study did not require research ethics approval" can be utilized. So, there are three possible options regarding what to submit as ethics approval supplementary file:
Approval was obtained: The approval document includes the name of the ethics committee, institution, approval number or ID, and date.
Approval was waived: State that the competent ethics committee formally waived the requirement, ideally with committee name and waiver reference.
Approval was not required: Explicitly state that ethical approval was not required under institutional/national rules, preferably with a reason.
If your article includes an image of someone’s face or any other image and/or information that might identify them, you must provide proof of informed consent via a completed consent to publish form.
Authorship: authorship of publications should be limited to those who have made a genuine and substantial contribution to the paper’s concept, design, writing or interpretation. All those who made a significant contribution to the study should be listed as co-authors. The Principal Investigator or first listed author should ensure that all eligible co-authors are included in the manuscript and make sure that the final version of the study accepted for publication is made available to all co-authors.
Major errors in the published paper: Major errors or inaccuracies can be corrected before and after publication of the manuscript. If the author discovers a substantial error in a published or submitted paper, he/she is obliged to report this fact to the Editors. The Editor-in-Chief will then take proper measures to handle the form of correction. The journal, depending on the outcome of the investigation, may publish a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose the sources of financial support for the research related to the paper, financial and other potential conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of the results. Authors are required to declare any circumstances that may influence an objective assessment of the manuscript’s content. This includes not only financial conflicts of interest, but also personal, professional and institutional conflicts of interest.
Citation ethics and manipulation: Authors should be mindful of the following behaviours:
- Self-citation: Authors should not excessively self-cite their own previously published works. Included citations must be relevant and add value to the article, and they should not be included just to increase the author's citation score. Authors should keep their self-citations to a minimum when discussing methodologies or literature reviews.
- Coercive citation: During the peer-review process, authors may be referred to papers the reviewer believes can further develop and improve authors’ ideas. While there may be legitimate reasons to reference other publications, 'coercive citation' is unethical (this is where a reference is included as a condition of acceptance or without academic justification). Our journal is an advocate of both author freedom and editorial independence. If an author feels he has been pressured to include a particular reference, or that an editor is unclear on best ethical practice, should contact the Editor-in-Chief.
- Citation pushing: 'Citation pushing' is where an author includes superfluous or irrelevant references with the intention of boosting another specific individual’s citation score; this often occurs amongst groups of individuals who aim to boost each other’s citation scores. This kind of behaviour is unwelcome in our journal.
- Whenever possible authors are encouraged to cite the primary literature in favour of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.
