IJMERI stands for International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research and Innovation, and it aspires to be a premier peer-reviewed platform and reliable source of knowledge. We publish original research papers, review articles, and case studies in multidisciplinary and related themes that have not been published anywhere in English or Filipino translations and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The statement below defines the ethical conduct of all parties engaged in the process of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, editor, reviewer, and publisher (IJMERI & Saint Joseph College) Philippines. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of conduct (https://publicationethics.org/) is supported by the journal. The COPE website has a lot more information on the Core Practices: COPE CORE PRACTICES.
1. Reporting Requirements: Authors must include an accurate summary of the original study as well as an impartial evaluation of its importance. Researchers must disclose their findings honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or improper data modification. A manuscript should include enough material and references to allow others to copy the work. Fraudulent or willfully incorrect remarks are unethical and must be avoided. Manuscripts should adhere to the journal's submission standards.
2. Plagiarism and Originality: Authors must guarantee that their work is fully unique. Unless the editors have consented to co-publishing, the work should not be submitted to more than one publication at the same time. Previous research and publications, both by other researchers and by the authors, should be appropriately recognized and mentioned. Wherever feasible, the main literature should be mentioned. Original text obtained straight from other researchers' works should be surrounded by quotation marks and accompanied by proper citations. The accepted plagiarism percentage should not be more than 10%.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: In general, the author should not submit the same work to more than one journal at the same time. It is also anticipated that the author will not submit duplicate submissions or publications reporting the same study to several journals. Submitting the same article to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and improper publishing activity. Multiple publications resulting from a single research endeavor must be explicitly acknowledged as such, and the main publication must be cited.
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should disclose all data sources utilized in the study and mention publications that were significant in shaping the character of the presented work. It is always necessary to properly acknowledge the labor of others.
5. Paper Authorship: The authorship of research papers should appropriately represent the contributions of persons to the study and its reporting. Authorship should be restricted to individuals who made a major contribution to the study's idea, design, implementation, or interpretation. Others who contributed significantly must be identified as co-authors. When key contributors are recognized as authors, others who made less significant, or simply technical, contributions to the study or publication are mentioned in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all authors have viewed and approved to the manuscript's submitted version, as well as their inclusion of names as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should explicitly state any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be interpreted as influencing the findings or interpretation of their paper in their manuscript. All sources of funding for the project should be mentioned.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author finds a substantial error or inaccuracy in the submitted article, he or she should tell the journal editor or publisher immediately and work with the editor to withdraw or fix the study.
1. Publication Decisions: Based on the editorial board's review report, the editor might accept, reject, or suggest changes to the manuscript. Such judgments must always be driven by the validity of the work in issue and its value to academics and readers. The editors may be led by the editorial board's principles and bound by the legal requirements in effect at the time addressing libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In reaching this judgment, the editors may consult with other editors or reviewers. Editors must accept responsibility for everything they publish and should have systems and policies in place to assure the quality of their work and the integrity of the public record.
2. Submission Review: The editor must guarantee that each manuscript is first examined for originality. The editor should arrange and utilize peer review in a fair and prudent manner. In the material for authors, editors should describe their peer review methods and disclose which portions of the journal are peer-reviewed. The Editor should choose qualified peer reviewers for manuscripts under consideration for publication, avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor shall guarantee that each submission submitted by the journal is examined for intellectual substance regardless of the authors' sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, or other characteristics. Upholding the ideal of editorial independence and integrity is a vital aspect of the obligation to make fair and impartial choices. Editors have considerable authority when it comes to publishing choices, thus it is critical that this process be as fair and impartial as possible.
4. Confidentiality: The editor must guarantee that information about papers submitted by writers remains private. Editors should evaluate any possible violations of data security and patient confidentiality. This involves obtaining adequately informed permission for the study provided, as well as consent for publishing when relevant.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Without the author's explicit permission, the editor of the Journal will not utilize unpublished information revealed in a submitted paper for their own study. Editors should not be engaged in choices concerning publications in which they have a financial stake.
1. Confidentiality: Authors' manuscript submission information should be kept secret and considered as proprietary information. They must not be displayed or discussed with anybody else unless specifically permitted by the editor.
2. Source Acknowledgement: Reviewers must confirm that authors have acknowledged all data sources utilized in the study. Reviewers should find relevant published material that the authors have not referenced. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has previously been published should be backed-up by a reference. If reviewers discover any irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, they should notify the journal immediately; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally inveigh on them.
3. Objectivity Standards: Review of submitted publications must be done objectively, and reviewers must state their opinions clearly with supporting evidence. Unless there are compelling reasons not to, reviewers should follow the journal's guidelines on the particular input that is needed of them. The reviewers should be helpful in their criticism and make suggestions to assist the writers improve their article. The reviewer should specify which additional studies are required to validate the assertions made in the paper under evaluation and which would simply enhance or expand the work.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Confidential information or ideas gained via peer review must be kept private and not exploited for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate articles in which they have competing, collaborating, or other ties or links with any of the authors, corporations, or institutions associated with the publications. If they suspect the identity of the author(s) during the double-blind review, they must tell the journal if this knowledge concerns any possible conflict of interest.
5. Promptness: Reviewers should answer in a fair amount of time. Reviewers will only agree to evaluate a manuscript if they are reasonably certain they will be able to deliver a review within the suggested or mutually agreed-upon time period, telling the journal immediately if an extension is required. If a reviewer believes he or she will be unable to finish the evaluation of the manuscript within the time frame specified, this information must be notified to the editor so that the paper may be given to another reviewer.
Authors of papers addressing human subjects research must also ensure that the study stated in their submission, as well as the publication of their work, conforms with all local rules.
Prior to submitting a publication, writers of articles describing human subjects research must get assessment and approval (or review and waiver) from their Institutional Review Board (IRB). Authors of multisite research papers must get authorization from the IRB in each institution. Documentation of IRB status must be made available upon request. If no institutional review boards or committees exist, the authors must perform their research in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, as amended in 2013. A declaration of IRB approval or waiver (with an explanation for the waiver) or a statement of adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki must be included in the Materials and Methods section (or at the end of the text for shorter article types: e.g., announcements, short form papers, etc.).
If the participant cannot be recognized from any content in the text, informed permission for publishing is not required. In the absence of informed consent, identifiable factors such as partipants' initials, exact dates, particular geographic exposures, or other identifying aspects (including body features in figures) should be removed, but this must not undermine the scientific meaning. Important information should be provided in such a manner that the participant cannot be identified, for as by stating a season rather than a date or a location rather than a city. If a participant may be identified from the text of a paper, every effort should be made to get informed permission to publish from participants or their parents/legal guardians if the participant is a child. The participant must be able to read the manuscript before it is submitted in order to provide informed consent. The written permission must state either that the participant has read the whole text or that the participant refuses to do so. The writers should preserve a copy of the participant's consent and make it accessible to anybody who requests it. A statement attesting to the receipt and retention of signed participant consent should be included in the published report.