Ethical foundations and scope.

Classroom Experiences publishes classroom action research rooted in authentic teaching and learning settings. Our ethics policy is not a generic template; it is an operational charter that protects learners, respects teachers, and preserves the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal adopts the COPE Code of Conduct and COPE flowcharts for the handling of suspected misconduct, and aligns its research-participant protections with AERA’s Code of Ethics and the BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (5th ed., 2024). For authorship transparency we implement the NISO CRediT contributor-roles taxonomy (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022). Where studies intersect with AI in educational contexts, we draw on the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and allied guidance for education. Where this policy is silent, editors follow the relevant COPE guidance and document decisions accordingly.

Editorial independence and peer review.

Decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, clarity, and fit with our aims and scope—never on authors’ identity, seniority, or institutional affiliation. We use double-blind peer review with at least two qualified reviewers; where opinions diverge substantially, a third review or a focused methods/statistical consultation may be commissioned. Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves if a reasonable person could doubt their impartiality (recent collaboration, shared unit, personal ties). Manuscripts remain confidential throughout assessment. These practices reflect COPE’s expectations of editorial fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Originality, similarity, and appropriate reuse.

Submissions must be original and not under consideration elsewhere. We screen for similarity and interpret results contextually: technical overlap in Methods may be legitimate; unattributed textual recycling, patchwriting, duplicate or redundant publication, and salami-slicing are not. Preprints are welcome; disclose the server and persistent identifier at submission, and update the preprint with the version-of-record citation post-publication. Suspected overlap or prior publication is handled per the applicable COPE flowchart.

Authorship, contributorship, and transparency.

Education research is collaborative; clarity about who did what matters. We require a CRediT statement identifying each contributor’s roles (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, investigation, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing, data curation). Gift, guest, and ghost authorship are unacceptable. Where a named individual’s contribution is limited to non-scholarly assistance (administrative help, logistics), that support should be acknowledged, not credited as authorship. CRediT’s role set is adopted as our house standard.

Research integrity, data and materials, and image fidelity.

Authors must report findings honestly, without fabrication, falsification, deceptive manipulation, or selective reporting that misleads readers. Because action research hinges on replicable improvement cycles, manuscripts should make the intervention intelligible: describe the action/reflection cycles, instruments and rubrics, timing, inclusion/exclusion, and analytic approach in enough detail to be critiqued and, where appropriate, repeated. Where lawful and ethical, we encourage sharing of de-identified data, instruments, and analysis code; when direct sharing is restricted (e.g., to protect minors), explain the constraint and—if feasible—offer controlled access. Image adjustments must not misrepresent data; routine enhancements (e.g., brightness, contrast) should be applied uniformly and disclosed.

Human participants in classroom settings.

Our community works in schools and with young people; the ethical bar is therefore high. We expect: (i) informed consent for adult participants; (ii) guardian consent for minors, plus assent where appropriate; (iii) meaningful anonymization and careful handling of any potentially identifying images or narratives; (iv) fair treatment that avoids coercion or disadvantage for non-participants; and (v) explicit mitigation of dual-role conflicts when teachers function as both instructor and researcher (e.g., independent grading, blinded assessment, clear separation of instructional and research activities). Authors must state that their study received ethics/IRB approval or a formal exemption and justify the risk assessment typical of classroom interventions (“minimal risk,” right to withdraw, and equitable access to benefits). These expectations reflect the AERA Code of Ethics and BERA 2024 guidance for educational research.

Use of generative AI and automated tools.

AI systems cannot be authors, because they cannot bear public accountability. Any AI-assisted writing, translation, analysis, or image generation must be openly disclosed (tool, version, scope of use). Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy, originality, copyright, and privacy—especially the protection of learners’ personal data. Our approach is informed by UNESCO’s global standard on AI ethics and education-focused guidance.

Reviewer conduct.

We ask reviewers to offer evidence-based, constructive, and timely critiques that focus on content rather than identity or status. Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be circulated or used for personal benefit. Reviewers should alert the editor—quietly and directly—if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, image/data manipulation, or ethical problems in classroom practice. Potential conflicts of interest must be declared on invitation; where conflicts exist, reviewers should decline. These expectations mirror COPE’s guidance on peer-review ethics.

Handling concerns and alleged misconduct.

We follow the relevant COPE flowcharts for suspected plagiarism; redundant publication; fabricated or falsified data; undisclosed conflicts; authorship disputes; and post-publication concerns. In practice, the editor: (1) preserves the record and conducts an initial appraisal; (2) contacts the corresponding author for an explanation and supporting documentation within a reasonable window; and (3) reaches a proportionate decision—clarification, revision with added disclosure/citation, rejection, institutional notification, or post-publication action. All steps and communications are documented; parties are informed of outcomes consistent with COPE guidance.

Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.

When errors do not compromise the main findings, we publish an Erratum (publisher error) or Corrigendum (author error). Where serious doubts exist but investigations are ongoing or inconclusive, we may issue an Expression of Concern. We retract a paper when findings are invalidated by major error or misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, falsification, unethical research). Notices are free to read, permanently linked to the article, and part of the scholarly record—consistent with COPE’s expectations.

Citation ethics and metrics integrity.

We reject practices that distort the evidence base: coercive citation, irrelevant self-citation, citation cartels, and any manipulation intended to inflate metrics. Editors and reviewers will not require citations to specific journals unless substantively necessary for method, context, or argument.

Open access, licensing, archiving, and fees.

Classroom Experiences is open access. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal a license to publish; we recommend CC BY to maximize lawful reuse with attribution. The version of record is preserved in trusted digital archives to ensure long-term accessibility. Any publication charges and waivers (if applicable) are transparent and have no bearing on editorial decisions. (We benchmark the clarity and completeness of this section against established ethics pages used by reputable Indonesian journals.)

Complaints and appeals.

Authors may appeal decisions with a reasoned letter that addresses the reviews; the Editor-in-Chief may commission an independent assessment. Complaints about process, delays, or ethics are investigated by the editorial office and, if necessary, escalated to the publisher. Post-publication concerns are assessed with the same rigor and—where warranted—handled using the relevant COPE pathway.

Our signature as a classroom action research journal.

What distinguishes this policy is its alignment with the realities of schools: a presumption of minimal risk to learners; careful management of teacher–researcher dual roles; equitable access to the benefits of classroom interventions; protection of minors and communities; and a culture of responsible sharing of de-identified instruments and materials so that good practice can be replicated ethically. Together with COPE, AERA, BERA, NISO CRediT, and UNESCO, these commitments form a practical, enforceable policy that editors, reviewers, authors, and readers can rely on.

Final Note

This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with evolving ethical standards and best practices in academic publishing. It is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and all parties involved in the publication process are expected to act in accordance with these principles.

Questions or concerns may be directed to the Editorial Office: care.tintaemas@gmail.com

See also: AI Policy, Author Guidelines, Peer Review Process.