Publication Ethics

Our commitment to publication integrity

Sapiens in Higher Education evaluates and publishes research on higher education according to standards of originality, truthfulness, transparency and scholarly accountability. We draw on the good practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the legal and ethical requirements applicable to each study. Ethical compliance is considered at submission, during peer review and publication, and when published articles are subsequently challenged; acceptance does not prevent us from investigating concerns identified later.

We do not accept data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation of others’ contributions, undisclosed redundant publication, manipulation of citations or peer reviews, identity impersonation, unjustified authorship or deliberate concealment of relevant information. Legitimate scientific disagreement, negative findings and honest errors are distinguished from misconduct through an assessment of evidence and context.

Authorship responsibility and originality

Every listed author must have made a substantial intellectual contribution, participated in reviewing and approving the submitted or published version, and accepted responsibility for their own contribution and the overall integrity of the work. The CRediT statement identifies individual roles, but assigning a role does not on its own establish authorship. Contributions that do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged, with permission from the individuals named.

At submission, the corresponding author confirms that all coauthors know about the submission, that the work is original, that it is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere, and that citations and permissions for third-party material are appropriate. Changes to author names or order must be explained and supported by the documented agreement of those affected. If a dispute remains unresolved, we may suspend processing and seek assistance from the relevant institutions without adjudicating ownership of intellectual contributions ourselves.

Ethical protection of participants in university research

Studies involving students, faculty, administrative personnel or communities connected to higher education institutions must respect personal dignity, autonomy, safety and privacy. Authors must report approval or exemption from ethics review by the competent body where applicable, informed consent or another lawful basis for participation, and measures used to protect data. We do not ask authors to invent missing approvals or present retroactive ethical clearance as if it existed at the time of the research.

Where instructors conduct research with students whose grades, placements, scholarships or recommendations depend on them, authors must explain how coercion was prevented and how students could decline without academic disadvantage. Use of academic records, learning-platform logs, disability or well-being information, dropout data or small cohorts requires assessment of indirect identification and disclosure risks. Publishing identifiable personal information or images requires appropriate authorization and ethical and legal justification.

Funding, interests and research transparency

Authors must disclose funding sources and material or institutional support relevant to interpreting the study, along with significant financial, academic, professional, personal or institutional interests. Funding statements should identify the project, where applicable, and explain funders’ roles in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing. If no external funding was received, this must be explicitly stated.

A disclosed interest does not automatically result in rejection. We examine its nature and take proportionate steps to manage it transparently. Editors and reviewers must also report relationships that could compromise independent judgment and withdraw from cases involving a relevant conflict.

Data, methods and artificial intelligence

Articles must report research designs, procedures, sources and analyses in enough detail for their claims to be assessed. Each article must include a data availability statement or explain why no data were generated or why data cannot be shared. We encourage depositing datasets, instruments or code when feasible. Where privacy, consent or third-party ownership imposes restrictions, authors must explain them and identify controlled-access arrangements where appropriate.

Authors must disclose substantive uses of artificial intelligence in study design, material production, coding, analysis, images or content drafting. The disclosure should identify the tool, purpose and relevant human verification. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or replace verification of data, citations and conclusions. Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts when dealing with external services.

Impartial editorial assessment

Manuscripts passing initial editorial screening undergo double-anonymized review by external experts. We select reviewers for subject and methodological expertise, check competing interests and require reasoned, confidential reports. The editor-in-chief or designated academic editor makes decisions based on peer-review findings and assessment of the full scholarly record; payment, affiliation or personal relationships do not confer priority.

If an editorial board member, an ISICM representative or a member of Sapiens Edition S.A.S. authors a submission, that person takes no part in managing or deciding on it. An academic editor free of relationships compromising independence manages the case and appoints external reviewers. Review recommendations must not be used to impose irrelevant citations or secure personal advantage.

Examining concerns and the right to respond

Any author, reviewer, reader or institution may report substantiated concerns about a manuscript or published article. We record the concern, identify the allegations, examine the available documentation and provide those involved with an opportunity to respond. Confidentiality and protection against retaliation are considered in light of the circumstances and applicable law. Where verification falls beyond editorial competence, we may request information from relevant institutions.

Outcomes are proportionate to the evidence and the stage of publication. Before publication, they may include clarifications, corrections, temporary suspension or reasoned rejection; after publication, a linked correction, expression of concern or retraction may be necessary. We do not silently alter the published version to conceal errors or challenges. Disagreement about results is not in itself evidence of misconduct.

Complaints, appeals and journal communications

Complaints about editorial conduct, conflicts, confidentiality, procedures or decisions may be sent to the official address, journalsjhe@gmail.com. Appeals against a scientific decision must identify the issues allegedly overlooked or misjudged and provide verifiable reasons or evidence. Where possible, a person not involved in the original decision reviews the appeal; reconsideration does not ensure acceptance or require a new review without grounds.

This policy operates alongside the journal’s dedicated rules on authorship, research data, competing interests, artificial intelligence, peer review, corrections and retractions. If we revise significant provisions, we will announce the changes through our official website and related editorial guidance.