At the Global Educational Research Review, we hold a steadfast commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards in publication. Our dedication aligns with the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and we actively contribute to fostering ethical practices across the scholarly publishing landscape.

Key Principles of Our Research and Publishing Ethics

Your research is welcome for submission under these conditions:

• It is conducted with utmost rigour and integrity.
• It is entirely original.
• It has not been submitted or published elsewhere, except as detailed in our policies on preprints and conference papers.
• It is free from libellous, defamatory, or unlawful content.
• All necessary permissions for third-party material have been obtained.
• Consent has been secured for any named individuals or entities.
• Authorship is accurately represented, avoiding both ghost authorship and unearned authorship credits.

Should we discover a breach of these conditions post-publication, actions consistent with COPE guidelines may be taken, including corrections, retractions, or removals from our database, contingent upon the resolution of any legal proceedings or independent reviews.

Research Ethics Involving Human Participants

The Global Educational Research Review (GERR) requires all authors to ensure that studies involving human participants adhere to internationally recognized ethical standards in both research design and reporting. Authors must comply with the following principles:

Ethics Approval

All research involving human participants must receive prior approval from an appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. Manuscripts must clearly state:

• The name of the approving institution,
• The approval or protocol reference number (if applicable),
• The date of approval.

If a formal ethics review was not required, authors must provide a clear justification and confirm that the study complied with institutional and national ethical guidelines.

Informed Consent

Authors must ensure that voluntary, informed, and preferably written consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. This includes consent for:

• Participation in the study,
• Use of data for research purposes,
• Publication of any personally identifiable information or quotations.

For vulnerable populations (e.g., minors, individuals with cognitive impairments), informed consent must be obtained from legal guardians in accordance with applicable ethical and legal standards.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Authors are responsible for safeguarding participants’ privacy and confidentiality. Identifiable data may only be published with explicit permission from the participants. All data collection and storage must comply with relevant data protection laws and regulations.

Ethics Statement in Manuscript

Manuscripts reporting research involving human participants must include a dedicated Ethics Statement in the methods section that clearly describes:

• The ethical approval process,
• The informed consent procedure,
• Measures taken to ensure confidentiality and data protection.

Editors may request supporting documentation (e.g., ethics approval letters or consent forms) at any stage of the review or publication process.

Editorial Oversight

Manuscripts that fail to meet ethical requirements or lack adequate disclosures may be rejected. GERR also reserves the right to issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern after publication if ethical issues are identified.

Authorship Guidelines

Authorship disputes can detract from the integrity of your work. To prevent such issues:

• Adhere to the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship.
• Ensure all contributors meeting these criteria are listed as authors, while those not meeting them should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.
• Authorship Limitation: To uphold the integrity of authorship and discourage inappropriate practices such as gift or honorary authorship, manuscripts should generally list no more than six (6) authors. Exceptions for large-scale collaborative projects may be considered upon editorial approval.

Generative AI and Authorship

Generative AI tools or Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot be credited as authors.
Any AI tool use in the writing process must be disclosed, accompanied by human oversight and accountability, and authors bear full responsibility for the content.

Use in Writing
AI tools may be used to improve readability and language but not to replace human judgment. Authors must carefully review the outputs, and any use of AI should be transparently disclosed in the manuscript.

Authorship
AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Authorship requires human accountability for accuracy, integrity, originality, and compliance with ethical guidelines.

Use in Research and Data Analysis
This policy refers to the writing process and does not regulate the use of AI tools for data analysis or insight generation. If AI tools are part of the research methods, their use must be described in detail in the methods section, including the name, version, and manufacturer of the tool.

Use in Figures, Images, and Artwork
AI tools cannot be used to create or alter figures, images, or artwork unless they are part of the research methods, which must be fully disclosed. Adjustments to brightness or contrast are acceptable if they do not obscure original information. Authors may be asked to provide raw images for editorial review.

Restrictions on Artwork
Graphical abstracts and artwork using AI are not permitted, except in cases such as cover art, where prior approval from the editor and publisher is required. Proper attribution and clearance of rights must be ensured.

Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics. To ensure the originality of submissions, we utilize Crossref Similarity Check to identify potential plagiarism.

Any allegations of research misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification or fabrication, are handled in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

If misconduct is identified:

1. The editorial team will investigate the matter thoroughly, ensuring due process and fairness.
2. Authors may be asked to provide explanations, data, or clarifications.
3. Actions such as corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern will be issued if necessary.

We reserve the right to inform relevant institutions, funders, or third parties where misconduct is confirmed. Our approach is guided by principles of transparency, accountability, and integrity.

Conflict of Interest

GERR adheres to COPE guidance and the ICMJE disclosure standards to ensure transparency and reader trust. Disclose any financial or non-financial relationships, activities, or interests related to the manuscript within the past 36 months (or since project inception, whichever is longer). If any conflicts exist, each author must complete and upload the COI & Funding Disclosure Form (one form per author). If no conflicts exist, include a brief “no competing interests” statement in the Declarations → Disclosure Statement section. When in doubt, disclose. Download: COI & Funding Disclosure Form (DOCX)

Addressing Complaints and Disputes

GERR handles complaints and appeals in accordance with COPE Core Practices. Complaints may relate to editorial decisions, peer-review conduct, publication ethics (e.g., authorship, plagiarism, data integrity, undisclosed competing interests), or suspected research misconduct. Please email the editorial office at [idmyresearch@gmail.com] with the manuscript title/ID, a concise description of the issue, and any supporting documentation. We will acknowledge receipt promptly and conduct an impartial review; cases involving a potential conflict of interest (e.g., an editor) are reassigned to another editor or the publisher. Outcomes are communicated in writing and may include an explanation, correction/clarification, an Editorial Note or Expression of Concern, or retraction in serious cases. A reasoned appeal may be submitted and will be reviewed by an editor not previously involved. All cases are handled confidentially, without retaliation, and with due regard for the integrity of the scholarly record..