Publication ethics

NETLA – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics in academic publishing. This Code of Ethics reflects international best practices as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier Publishing Ethics, and the Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration.

All parties involved in the publication process for Netla including editors, reviewers, authors, and publishers, must adhere to these guidelines.

Responsibilities of Authors

  • Originality and Plagiarism
    Authors must submit original, unpublished work. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and redundant publication is unacceptable. AI - assisted writing tools must be disclosed; ultimate responsibility remains with the authors.
  • Authorship: Those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Contributors not meeting authorship criteria should be acknowledged. Authorship changes post-submission require written consent from all authors.
  • Data Integrity and Transparency: Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of data. Data may be requested for editorial review and should comply with open data policies where applicable.
  • Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose all financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest. All funding sources must be acknowledged.
  • Ethical Approvals: Studies involving human participants require prior ethical approval and informed consent. Compliance with GDPR and Icelandic data protection laws is mandatory.
  • Corrections and Retractions: Authors must promptly notify the journal of significant errors. Corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern will follow COPE procedures.

Responsibilities of Editors

  • Fair Review Process: Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, and originality, free from discrimination.
  • Confidentiality: Editors will maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Conflict of Interest: Editors must disclose any conflicts and recuse themselves from conflicted submissions.
  • Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions are made independently of institutional, political, or commercial interests.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all materials confidential and not use them for personal gain.
  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted impartially with constructive feedback.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose conflicts and decline reviews where conflicts exist.
  • Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within agreed timeframes; delays must be communicated promptly.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

  • Uphold editorial independence and support editors.
  • Investigate allegations of misconduct following COPE guidelines.
  • Ensure long-term digital preservation and access to content.
  • Provide advice and assistance regarding academic publications.

Misconduct Handling

  • Misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes) will be investigated per COPE flowcharts.