Publication Ethics

Integrity must precede visibility.

The journal’s ethics framework is being developed around internationally recognised publication-ethics principles. Formal membership of any external ethics organisation will not be claimed unless it is actually obtained.

Core expectations

Authors must report original work honestly, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, identify funding, respect research-participant protections, obtain required ethical approvals where applicable, and avoid fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate authorship and duplicate publication.

AI and authorship

AI systems cannot take responsibility for a manuscript and therefore cannot be authors. Any substantive use of generative systems in research or manuscript preparation should be disclosed when it materially affects the scholarly work, while responsibility for accuracy, sources, interpretation and originality remains with the human authors.

Corrections and retractions

The publication architecture will preserve transparent correction, expression-of-concern and retraction records rather than silently replacing the scholarly record.

Research participants, informed consent and safeguarding

Educational inquiry frequently involves children, teachers and individuals whose participation is shaped by institutional authority. Authors should describe applicable ethical review, informed consent or assent, data protection, potential risks and measures taken to preserve dignity and confidentiality. Where formal committee review was not required, authors should explain the applicable institutional and jurisdictional basis rather than imply that ethical responsibilities were absent.

Authorship, disclosure and competing interests

Author contribution should reflect substantial intellectual responsibility. The journal will expect transparency about funding, relevant employment or personal interests, prior dissemination, overlapping manuscripts and the contribution of research collaborators. Editorial roles do not guarantee acceptance. Where a manuscript involves a journal editor or close collaborator, an independent handling arrangement and published disclosure will be required.

Research integrity and the use of AI

Generative technologies may assist specific tasks, but they cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy of data, sources or interpretation. Material uses that may affect scholarly content or analysis should be disclosed, and authors must verify references and protect confidential participant data. The journal will not accept fabricated evidence, manipulated images, invented citations or undisclosed duplicate publication.

Concerns, corrections and responsible archiving

A future publication record must distinguish corrections, expressions of concern and retractions, with dated notices explaining the basis of action without quietly erasing prior versions. The full operational policies for allegations, appeals, author replies and independent investigation will be published before manuscript intake is enabled. JHELA follows publication-ethics principles as a developing policy framework; it does not claim organisational membership in COPE.

Consult COPE Core Practices as external guidance, and the journal's planned peer-review policy.

Confidentiality, AI-assisted review and editorial accountability

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, research-participant information and editorial correspondence are entrusted to the journal for a limited scholarly purpose. Under the planned policy, reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable material to public generative-AI systems, or delegate the substance of a peer-review judgement to such systems. Any exceptional automated processing would require prior journal authorisation, appropriate legal and technical safeguards, disclosure where relevant and accountable human oversight. Routine language editing must not compromise confidentiality or replace the reviewer's independent analysis.

Editors retain responsibility for screening concerns involving image manipulation, text similarity, fabricated references, data irregularities and undisclosed AI use. Automated detection may indicate a matter requiring further investigation; it must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. Authors should have an appropriate opportunity to explain or correct concerns, and conflicted editors must recuse themselves from the process.

Author rights, preservation and emerging policy status

The future licence, author copyright position, repository-deposit permissions and long-term preservation arrangements will be stated before the first formal call for manuscripts. These cannot be inferred merely from the intention to offer free access. In particular, an open-access claim must have a clear reuse licence and publicly verifiable full-text access when publication actually begins.

JHELA's current policies describe its founding commitments rather than evidence of a functioning peer-review, plagiarism-investigation, appeals or digital-preservation service. This distinction will remain visible until each procedure is independently tested. Further background is available in the DOAJ Guide to Applying and COPE Core Practices; consulting those sources does not constitute affiliation with either organisation.