Academic and Publishing Ethics Statement

In accordance with academic regulations and peer review principles, JoEMLS values both the scientific rigor of submitted manuscripts and ethics of academic publishing. All information in JoEMLS website have adhered to the guidelines described in the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
For all manuscripts written in English or Chinese, authors need to verify that main points, research findings, conclusions and suggestions in their own manuscripts are with originality and in accordance with regulations of academic citations. Every manuscript that submitted into JoEMLS is going to be scanned via Turnitin (similarity check). All submitted manuscripts must not ever been published in any prints or electronic formats. In addition, at the point of submitting manuscripts, documents of authorization must be provided, for guaranteeing the same manuscript is not submitted to multiple journals, and the content is not involved in any plagiarism or copyright infringements. Manuscripts will enter a double-blind peer review procedure, but the authors must be responsible for the accuracy and rigor of manuscripts.
After obtaining consent from both authors and reviewers, we will disclose author responses and peer review comments. As it is shown in our guidelines of Manuscript Submission, after authors agree to have their manuscripts accepted and published by our journal, it automatically means that they offer a free authorization for JoEMLS to re-authorize other database vendors to collect the manuscripts into their databases in an open access and non-exclusive license manner, and allow for re-producing, publicly transmitting, and authorized downloading and printing by database subscribers. In addition, modifications or changes of formats are also allowed for meeting requirements of different databases.
In addition to basic requirements mentioned above, based on suggestions by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), publication ethics regarding different roles in academic publishing, such as Chief Editor, Executive Editor, reviewers, and authors of submitted manuscripts, are disclosed below on responsibilities and handling of academic ethics violations.
A. Responsibilities of Chief Editor and Executive Editor
  1. To evaluate submitted manuscripts in a fair and objective manner, guaranteeing the rights of manuscript submitters are not influenced by factors of races, skin colors, genders, languages, religions, political orientations or other assertions, nationalities, or social status.
  2. To evaluate submitted manuscripts only with academic values and significances, without considerations of their influences on academic paradigms, schools or business.
  3. To provide manuscript submitters with appropriate channels of opinion communication, and to follow appropriate handling procedures.
  4. To monitor any potential conflict of interests, including financial and academic cooperation ones, or other interest conflicts among manuscript authors, reviewers and the editorial committee.
  5. To refer to opinions of the editorial advisory committee, and to recommend anonymous external reviewers according to academic fields and research backgrounds of manuscript submitters. Selected reviewers should not have direct interest conflicts with authors, for reviewing manuscripts in a rigorous and objective manner, and providing constructive suggestions.
  6. To evaluate submitted manuscripts as the chief reviewer following appropriate review procedures, to incorporate opinions of outside reviewers and review manuscripts in an objective manner, to provide authors with relevant revision suggestions, and to decide whether manuscripts should be rejected or accepted according to the quality.
  7. To handle manuscripts of violating academic ethics based on rights and obligations authorized to Chief Editor as disclosed by COPE.
  8. To maintain a strict standard for accepting manuscripts, and to incorporate opinions of all reviewers and Chief Editor of the academic fields, for verifying the quality of accepted manuscripts.
B. Responsibilities of Reviewers
  1. To review submitted manuscripts in a timely, fair, and objective manner, and to verify that the accepted manuscripts would enhance the quality of JoEMLS.
  2. To keep confidential of the contents of submitted manuscripts, and to delete all created files during the review process.
  3. To inform Chief Editor or Executive Editor to adopt appropriate measures when observing that reviewed manuscripts have similar contents with other published manuscripts.
C. Responsibilities of Authors
  1. To ensure the manuscripts only submitted to JoEMLS, without being submitted to or under the review process in other journals, and to guarantee the manuscripts have not been published in other publications or media. If the submitted manuscripts are adapted from conference papers or degree papers, the relevant regulations of manuscript submission should be followed.
  2. To ensure the manuscripts are original works of authors themselves, and to guarantee that co-authors have indeed participated in writing and had concrete contributions. Manuscripts should be original works of academic researches with accurate data and credible sources, and must not be involved in any plagiarism.
  3. To take the initiative to inform Chief Editor or the Editorial Board of JoEMLS when observing any errors in submitted manuscripts.
  4. Please refer to relevant regulations on academic publishing ethics in our Manuscript Submission guidelines.
D. Judgment and Handling of Ethic Misconducts
  1. Any invited reviewers, Chief Editor, Executive Editor, or any members of the editorial committee who observe any misconducts regarding academic ethics on authors’ part, should inform Chief Editor or the Editorial Committee for adopting rapid measures.
  2. Definitions of misconducts include but are not limited to the ethics statement mentioned above.
  3. When Chief Editor and Executive Editor are informed with any misconducts of violating academic ethics, they should collect enough data and proofs to launch an investigation and discussions. All accusations should be treated seriously and handled with consistent criteria, till appropriate decisions or conclusions are made.
  • Chief Editor should decide the initial guidelines of investigation, and seek suggestions from Executive Editor and the Editorial Committee at appropriate timing.
  • Ample and adequate proofs should be collected without disturbing non-relevant persons.
  • Editorial committee meetings should be held for members to achieve final decisions, and for the authors to provide explanations.
Handling Violations of Academic Ethics
According to the seriousness of academic ethics violation, submitted manuscripts will be rejected and withdrawn. Situations of manuscript withdrawal include withdrawal, retraction, removal, and replacement, based on Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal.1 One or more than one penalty should be adopted from the three below.
  • The authors will leave a record in JoEMLS. For a specific or indefinite period of time, the authors will be banned from submitting manuscripts to JoEMLS, depending on the degree of violation.
  • The misconducts and findings of investigations will be sent through formal letters to offices of the institutions or schools where the persons of violating academic ethics belong.
  • The facts of misconducts will be disclosed in JoEMLS.

1Jeong-Yeou Chiu, “Editorial: A Reflection on the Ethics and Disputes of Submitting Journal Manuscripts,” Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences 53, no. 2 (Spring 2016), 135-138.