Publication Ethics

Ceddi Journal of Education (CJE) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, and the reliability of the scholarly record. This statement defines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher, Yayasan Cendekiawan Inovasi Digital Indonesia. The journal follows relevant principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout manuscript submission, editorial evaluation, peer review, publication, and post-publication processes.

A. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must submit original manuscripts that have not been previously published and are not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
Authors must report their research accurately and honestly, providing sufficient methodological detail, appropriate evidence, and transparent explanations of the research design, participants, instruments, procedures, and analyses to support their findings and conclusions.
Authors must acknowledge the work of others and avoid plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication, data falsification, misleading reporting, inappropriate paraphrasing, and citation manipulation. Any overlap with previous publications must be disclosed and appropriately cited.
Authorship Criteria and Responsibilities.
Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the research and manuscript. Qualifying contributions may include research conception or design, data acquisition, analysis or interpretation, and drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content. All listed authors must approve the final manuscript, agree to its submission and publication, and accept responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of their contributions and the published work.

Individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria must not be listed as authors. Funding acquisition, general supervision, administrative support, routine technical assistance, or language editing alone does not justify authorship. Such contributions may be acknowledged with the contributors' permission.

Any proposed addition, removal, or change in author order after submission must be explained to the editorial office and supported by written agreement from all affected authors. Unresolved authorship disputes may require clarification or resolution by the authors' institutions before editorial processing continues.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure.
Authors must disclose all funding sources and any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other competing interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the research, analysis, interpretation, or publication of the findings.

Every submitted manuscript must include a Conflict of Interest Statement, including a declaration when no competing interests exist. Relevant disclosures will be included in the published article. Undisclosed competing interests identified after publication will be evaluated and addressed in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy and applicable COPE guidance.
Research Ethics and Informed Consent. Research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, or other ethically sensitive information must comply with applicable ethical, institutional, and legal requirements. Authors must report ethical approval or an applicable exemption and describe informed consent where required. If ethical approval or informed consent was not required, authors must explain the reason.
Protection of Children and Vulnerable Participants. Research involving children or other vulnerable participants must include appropriate safeguards. Parental or guardian consent and age-appropriate assent must be obtained where applicable. Participation must be voluntary, and teacher–student or other dependent relationships must not be used to pressure individuals to participate.
Privacy and Confidentiality. Authors must protect participant privacy and confidentiality, including in classroom observations, photographs, videos, student records, educational assessments, and learning analytics. Permission to publish identifiable participant information must be obtained where required. Data must be reported in a manner that minimizes the risk of identifying individual participants.
Data Availability. Authors must provide a Data Availability Statement describing access to supporting data, instruments, code, or other research materials and any legitimate ethical, legal, privacy, confidentiality, or proprietary restrictions. Authors must not promise access to materials that cannot legitimately be shared.
Declaration of Generative AI Use. Authors must disclose any use of generative AI beyond straightforward language correction, editing, or formatting, identifying the tool used and the nature and purpose of its use, in accordance with the journal's Generative AI Policy. Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or used to fabricate research data, participant responses, observations, analyses, findings, or references. Generative AI used as part of the research methodology must be described in the Method section. AI-generated research materials or outputs must be clearly identified and must not be misrepresented as observations or responses from human participants. Human authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, confidentiality, and integrity of the entire manuscript.
Correction of Errors. Authors must respond to editorial and reviewer comments honestly and promptly inform the journal of significant errors or inaccuracies discovered in submitted or published work. They must cooperate with investigations, corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other appropriate editorial actions.

B. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related materials as confidential and must not share or use unpublished information for personal, professional, commercial, or other advantage.
Reviews must be objective, impartial, constructive, and supported by clear scholarly reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have suitable expertise and can complete the review within the agreed timeframe. They must promptly inform the editor of limitations or delays.
Reviewers must disclose competing interests and decline or discontinue a review when a relationship or interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.
Reviewers should assess conformity with the journal's scope, relevance to teaching, learning, assessment, or educational management and services, methodological quality, research ethics, interpretation, and scholarly contribution. Claims must be proportionate to the evidence, with technical performance and user perceptions distinguished from demonstrated educational outcomes. Suspected plagiarism, duplication, data irregularities, or other ethical concerns must be reported confidentially to the editor.
Recommendations to add citations must have a scholarly justification. Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase their own or another party's citation counts.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or review materials to public generative AI platforms. The journal's confidentiality and Generative AI policies apply to all digital tools used during review.

C. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors must make fair, impartial, and independent decisions based on scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, research ethics, and relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
All original research articles accepted for publication must have undergone double-blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise who are not members of the journal's editorial team and have no conflicts of interest related to the manuscript or its authors. Manuscripts that do not pass initial editorial screening may be returned or rejected without external peer review.
Editors must protect manuscript confidentiality and author and reviewer identities during double-blind review. Before external review, the editorial team must check the review copy and remove or mask author-identifying information, including identifying document properties, while retaining information necessary for methodological and ethical appraisal. Manuscripts and review materials must not be uploaded to public generative AI platforms.
Editors must disclose competing interests and withdraw from handling or deciding manuscripts where their impartiality could be compromised. When the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict, final decision-making must be delegated to an appropriate editor without that conflict.
Submissions by editorial team or Editorial Board members must be assigned to an editor without a conflict of interest and undergo the same external peer-review process as other submissions. The submitting member must not select reviewers, participate in editorial deliberations, or influence decisions concerning their manuscript. The journal must arrange handling responsibilities and system access to prevent the submitting member from accessing reviewer identities and confidential editorial deliberations.
Editors must assess similarity reports in context. A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism or replace scholarly and ethical assessment.
Editors must assess allegations of misconduct fairly, distinguish allegations from established findings, and seek relevant evidence and responses where appropriate.
Editors must consider corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when necessary to protect the scholarly record, following the journal's policies and relevant COPE guidance.
Editorial decisions must not be influenced by Article Processing Charge (APC) payments, waiver requests, commercial interests, institutional relationships, or discriminatory considerations.

D. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher supports ethical publishing practices and respects editorial independence.
The publisher must not allow commercial, financial, or institutional interests to improperly influence editorial decisions.
The publisher supports transparent information about author charges, copyright, licensing, open access, and the journal's business model.
The publisher supports appropriate assessment of misconduct allegations and the publication of corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions where necessary.
The publisher supports long-term preservation and continued accessibility of published content. The journal's preservation arrangements are described in its Archiving Policy.

E. Research Integrity and Misconduct

CJE prohibits plagiarism, unjustified duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed material competing interests, manipulation of peer review, and other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Allegations are assessed according to the available evidence and the nature of the concern. An allegation is not automatically treated as established misconduct. Authors and other relevant parties may be asked to provide explanations, supporting records, or other information.

Where appropriate, the journal may consult institutions, research-integrity officers, funders, or other relevant bodies and follow applicable COPE guidance. Actions may include rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the findings. The journal's role is to make editorial decisions and protect the scholarly record; institutional investigations may be needed to determine research misconduct.

Requests to change authorship must explain the reason and include agreement from all affected authors. Unresolved authorship disputes may pause processing and be referred to the relevant institution.

F. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about editorial procedures, publication ethics, staff conduct, or published content may be submitted through the journal's official contact information. Reports should identify the manuscript or article, explain the concern, and provide supporting information where available. The journal handles complaints fairly and protects confidentiality as far as practicable.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written explanation of substantive concerns about the assessment or procedure, supported by relevant evidence. An appeal does not guarantee reversal or acceptance. The outcome will be communicated to the corresponding author.

Complaints concerning an editor's conduct must be assessed by an appropriate editor or publisher representative without a conflict of interest. Appeals against editorial decisions must be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor or independent adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no conflict of interest. The person whose conduct or decision is being challenged must not be the sole final decision-maker.

Email for complaints, appeals, and ethical concerns: admin@ceddi.id or ceddicje@gmail.com

G. Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections

CJE welcomes evidence-based scholarly comments, questions, and concerns regarding published articles. Readers, authors, reviewers, and other interested parties may submit post-publication correspondence through the journal's official contact page or editorial email address. Submissions should identify the relevant article and clearly explain the issue, supported by evidence where appropriate.

The editorial team will assess the relevance, scholarly merit, and clarity of submitted comments. Where appropriate, the original authors will be invited to respond. Substantive comments and author responses may be considered for publication as scholarly correspondence linked to the original article, subject to editorial evaluation and applicable journal policies. Allegations of misconduct will be handled through the journal's research-integrity procedures rather than treated solely as ordinary scholarly discussion.

Errors that do not undermine the overall reliability of an article may be addressed through a correction. Serious unresolved concerns may warrant an expression of concern, while findings that undermine the reliability or legitimacy of publication may warrant retraction. Decisions will follow the journal's applicable policies and relevant COPE guidance.

Substantive post-publication changes must be documented through an appropriate notice linked to the article. Retracted articles normally remain accessible and clearly marked. Full-text removal is reserved for exceptional legal, privacy, safety, or similar circumstances, with an explanatory notice retained. Further details are provided in the journal's Retraction and Withdrawal Policy.