Publication Ethics

Journal Positive Schoool Psychology pursues the ethical standards present in the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the International Standards for editors and authors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the author and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. You can find comprehensive ethical guidelines for peer reviewers and other issues on the website of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

An article must be prepared and submitted in full compliance with not only national and international laws of ethics but also must respect common standards of ethics accepted by academicians. Therefore, all parties carry responsibility for respecting the principles of ethical standards.

Author Ethical Responsibilities

The authors who submit their manuscripts to Journal of Positive School Psychology are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

  • Articles submitted to the Journal must be original. All citations from other sources must be clearly
  • The names of the individuals who do not contribute to the study must not be included among If there is a conflict of interest regarding the study, the process under Conflict of Interest must be followed.
  • During the review process of their manuscripts, the author(s) may be asked to supply raw data. In such a case, the author(s) should be ready to submit such data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
  • Author(s) should document that they have the participants' consent and the necessary permissions related to the sharing and research/analysis of the data that are used.
  • Author(s) bears the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.
  • Authors cannot submit their studies to multiple journals simultaneously. Each submission can be made only after the previous one is completed.
  • No author names can be added after submission.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editor(s) of the Journal of Positive School Psychology (JPSP) should hold the ethical responsibilities based on the guides of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 General duties and responsibilities

  • actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
  • encourage and be aware of research into peer review and ‘journal logs’ and reassess journal processes in the light of new findings
  • work to persuade their publishers to provide them with appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers) and adequate training to perform their role professionally and raise the quality of their journal
  • support initiatives designed to reduce academic misconduct
  • support initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
  • assess the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revise policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
  • ensure that any press releases issued by the journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

Relations with readers

  • ensure that all published reports of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (e.g. including statistical review where appropriate)
  • ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are identified
  • adopt processes that encourage accuracy, completeness, and clarity of  research reporting (e.g.  technical editing, use  of CONSORT checklist for randomized trials1,2)
  • consider developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non- research articles3
  • adopt authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work)4 and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
  • inform readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

 Relations with authors

  • publish clear instructions in their journals about submission and what they expect from authors
  • provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor
  • review author instructions regularly and provide links to relevant guidelines (e.g. ICMJE, COPE)
  • require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
  • ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
  • respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission if these are well-reasoned.
  • be guided by the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
  • publish details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)

 Relations with reviewers

  • provide clear advice to reviewers (which should be straightforward and regularly updated)
  • require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission
  • encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions, (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals)
  • encourage reviewers to ensure the originality of submissions and be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
  • consider providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
  • seek to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
  • encourage academic institutions to recognize peer-review activities as part of the scholarly process
  • monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high quality
  • develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, and update this based on reviewer performance
  • remove from the journal’s database any reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
  • seek to add new reviewers to the database to replace those who have been removed (because of poor performance or other reasons)
  • ensure that the reviewer database reflects the academic community for their journal (e.g. by auditing the database in terms of reviewer age, gender, location, etc.)
  • use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
  • follow the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

 Relations with the editorial board

  • Editors must make sure that the members of the editorial board follow the procedures in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines, and must inform the members about the publication policies and developments. The editors must also train new members of the editorial board and provide the information they need
  • identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
  • ensure that the members of the editorial board review the manuscripts in an unbiased and independent manner.
  • select the new members of the editorial board from those who can contribute to the journal and are qualified enough.
  • send manuscripts for review based on the subject of expertise of the editorial board members.
  • regularly communicate with the editorial board.
  • arrange regular meetings with the editorial board for the development of publication policies and the journal

 Relations with journal owners and publishers

The relationship between the editors and publisher is based on the principle of the independence of editors. All the decisions made by the editors are independent of the publisher and the owner of the journal as required by the agreement made between editors and publishers.

 Editorial and peer-review processes

Editor(s) are obliged to comply with the policies of the "Blind Review and Review Process" stated in the journal's publication policies. Therefore, the editors ensure that each manuscript is reviewed in an unbiased, fair, and timely manner.

 Protecting individual data

Editor(s) are supposed to protect the personal information related to the subjects or visuals in the studies being reviewed and to reject the study if there is no documentation of the subjects' consent. Furthermore, editors are supposed to protect the personal information of the authors, reviewers, and readers.

 Encouraging ethical rules and the protection of human and animal rights

Editor(s) are supposed to protect human and animal rights in the studies being reviewed and must reject the experimental studies which do not have ethical and related committee’s approval about the population given in such studies.

 Ensuring academic integrity

Editor(s) must make sure that the mistakes, inconsistencies, or misdirections in studies are corrected quickly.

 Intellectual property

Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all the articles published in the journal and the rights of the journal and author(s) in cases where these rights are violated. Also, editors must take the necessary precautions to prevent the content of all published articles from violating the intellectual property rights of other publications.

 Commercial considerations

  • have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments)
  • publish a description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, special supplements, page charges, etc.)
  • ensure that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
  • ensure that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely based on academic merit and interest to readers and is not influenced by commercial considerations

 Conflicts of interest

Editors, acknowledging that there may be conflicting interests between reviewers and other editors, guarantee that the publication process of the manuscripts will be completed in an independent and unbiased manner.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer review in all its form plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. All manuscripts are reviewed through "Blind Review" has a direct influence on the publication quality. This process ensures confidentiality by an objective and independent review. The review process at the Journal of Positive School Psychology is carried out on the principle of the double-blind review process.

Reviewers should

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess on time
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and promptly
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Ethical Responsibilities of Publishers

  • Editors are responsible for all the processes that the manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Positive School Psychology. Considering this framework, the Publisher declares and guarantees free editor decisions to be
  • The Publisher holds the right of property and copyright of each published in the Journal of Positive School Psychology and has the responsibility to keep a
  • The Publisher has the responsibility to take all the precautions to avoid scientific exploitation, abuse, and plagiarism.