•  
  •  
 

Plymouth Interdisciplinary Education Open Journal

Publication Ethics Statement

The Plymouth Interdisciplinary Education Open Journal (PIEOJ) is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical practice across education, law, and the humanities. This includes quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, creative, and postqualitative/posthuman research.

The journal adheres to established principles of publication ethics, including those, as appropriate, outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), British Educational Research Association (BERA), and British Sociological Association (BSA), while also recognising that ethical practice in many contemporary forms of enquiry is relational, situated, and emergent.

Accordingly, this statement sets out both core standards of research and publication integrity, and the journal’s commitment to ethics as an ongoing, reflexive practice.

The journal recognises that ethical practice takes different forms across disciplines and methodologies. While some research is governed by formal protocols and regulatory frameworks, other forms of enquiry, particularly in the arts, humanities, and participatory traditions, require ethical approaches that are responsive to context, collaboration, and practice. This statement is intended to support both established and emerging forms of ethical engagement.

1. Core Principles of Publication Ethics

All participants in the publication process (authors, reviewers, and editors) are expected to uphold the following:

  • Integrity and honesty in the conduct and reporting of research
  • Transparency in methods, data1 (where appropriate), and authorship
  • Respect for research participants, collaborators, and affected communities
  • Accountability for ethical decision-making and scholarly conduct

The journal does not tolerate:

  • Fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data
  • Plagiarism or inappropriate use of others’ work
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Redundant or duplicate publication

Allegations of misconduct will be handled in line with COPE guidance.

2. Research Ethics and Approval

Where applicable, authors must confirm that:

  • Research involving human and non-human animal participants has received appropriate ethical approval from a recognised institutional body
  • Participants have provided informed consent, where required
  • Research complies with relevant legal and regulatory frameworks

Researchers must specify their ethical standpoint and positionality surrounding the use of/ discussion surrounding nature and non-human animals. This journal requires researchers to consider how their research process and results could impact the wellbeing and prosperity of entities recognised as having sentience or having personhood, or potential sentience. Researchers must respect non-human animals and nature, regardless of their use value when choosing topic and methods and when disseminating their research.

For research not requiring formal ethical approval (e.g., theoretical, philosophical, or some humanities-based work), authors should clearly state this and describe how ethical considerations were addressed.

The journal recognises that in some forms of research, particularly participatory, creative, or postqualitative enquiry, ethical processes may not conform to standard models. In such cases, authors are expected to provide a clear and transparent account of how ethical responsibility was enacted.

3. Authorship and Contribution

Authorship should accurately reflect intellectual and practical contributions to the work.

Authors must:

  • Ensure all listed authors have made a significant contribution
  • Obtain agreement from all co-authors prior to submission
  • Acknowledge contributors who do not meet authorship criteria2

The journal recognises that in some research contexts, including collaborative, participatory, or intergenerational work, authorship may extend beyond conventional academic roles. Where participants (including children or community collaborators) are included as co-authors, this must be accompanied by a clear ethical rationale.

4. Responsible Use of AI and AI-Assisted Tools

PIEOJ recognises that generative AI and AI-assisted tools are increasingly part of academic, professional, and creative work. The journal supports innovation where such tools are used responsibly, transparently, and without replacing authorial judgement, scholarly care, or ethical responsibility.

Authors may use AI-assisted tools where appropriate, but they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical standing of their submitted work. AI tools must not be listed as authors, as authorship requires accountability, consent, and responsibility for the work. Authors should disclose any substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools during submission, including how the tools were used. This does not normally include routine assistive technologies such as spelling or grammar checking.

Authors must check all AI-assisted outputs carefully. AI tools may produce inaccurate information, fabricated references, misleading summaries, biased outputs, or flattened accounts of complex knowledge. The use of AI does not reduce the author’s responsibility for citation, accuracy, originality, argument, or care.

PIEOJ also recognises that the use of AI raises wider ethical questions, including intellectual property, data privacy, bias, accessibility, labour, environmental cost, and resource use. Authors are encouraged to consider these wider implications when deciding whether and how to use AI-assisted tools.

To protect authors’ work, PIEOJ editors and reviewers will not upload submitted manuscripts, peer review materials, or unpublished author content into generative AI systems. AI tools must not be used to generate peer review reports, editorial decisions, or decision letters. Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential intellectual work.

5. Data, Privacy, and Confidentiality

Authors must ensure that:

  • Participant privacy and confidentiality are protected where appropriate
  • Identifiable information is handled with care and with consent
  • Data is stored and managed responsibly

Where participants are identifiable or named, authors must provide justification and demonstrate that this aligns with participants’ wishes and ethical considerations.

The journal recognises that anonymity is not always the most ethical option, particularly in collaborative or co-authored work.

6. Responsibilities of Authors

In addition to the above, authors are expected to engage with ethics as an ongoing, active, reflexive practice.

Authors should:

  • Describe how ethical relations were enacted within the research process
  • Explain how consent, assent, care, risk, authorship, and representation were negotiated
  • Provide rationale where conventional ethical procedures were adapted or challenged

The journal recognises that ethical responsibility may be ongoing, negotiated, and context-specific, particularly in creative, participatory, and postqualitative research.

7. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide fair, constructive, and timely evaluations
  • Maintain confidentiality of all submitted materials
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Respect diverse methodological and ethical approaches

Reviewers should not impose narrow disciplinary expectations where submissions demonstrate coherent and responsible ethical reasoning, even where this differs from conventional norms. Reviewers are encouraged to consider not only whether ethical procedures were followed, but how ethical responsibility is demonstrated within the work.

8. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • Ensuring fair and unbiased editorial decisions
  • Maintaining confidentiality and integrity in the review process
  • Addressing ethical concerns or misconduct appropriately
  • Supporting a diversity of methodological and ethical approaches

Editors may request clarification or further detail where ethical considerations require it, particularly in work that extends or challenges conventional frameworks.

9. Conflicts of Interest

All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could influence the research or its evaluation. Where conflicts of interest are identified, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure impartiality.

10. Ethics and Relational and Situated Practice

In addition to established ethical requirements, the journal acknowledges that not all ethical considerations can be fully anticipated or standardised in advance. In such cases, authors are expected to demonstrate careful, transparent, and contextually grounded ethical reasoning.

The journal further affirms that:

  • Ethical practice is often relational, emerging through interactions between researchers, participants, materials, and context.
  • Ethical decisions are situated, shaped by specific cultural, methodological, and disciplinary conditions.
  • Ethical responsibility may extend beyond human participants to include more-than-human relations.

11. Ongoing Ethical Dialogue

The journal understands ethics as on ongoing dialogue rather than a fixed set of rules. Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for sustaining ethical integrity and for engaging thoughtfully with the evolving ethical landscapes of research in education, law, and the humanities.

This statement is intended to complement relevant institutional, legal and relevant professional guidelines while recognising the diverse and evolving forms of ethical practice within contemporary research.

1 Data is understood as information that is collected, generated, selected or recognised to support analysis and interpretation. What constitutes data is shaped by the research context, methodological approach, and epistemological commitments of the work. In quantitative research, data may take the form of measurable variables or numerical records; in qualitative research, it may include interviews, observations, documents, images, fieldnotes, artefacts, or lived accounts; in autoethnographic, creative, postqualitative and posthuman research, data may also include memory, affect, dreams, sensory encounters, atmospheres, materials, environments, or events that become significant through the research process. The journal recognises that data is not always self-evident or reducible to what can be recorded, extracted, or archived. Authors should therefore explain what they are treating as data, how it was generated or encountered, and how it functions within the enquiry.

2The journal recognises that contribution may take different forms across disciplines and methodologies. Contributors may include individuals, groups, communities, organisations, artistic or cultural works, places, environments, materials, technologies, or more-than-human relations where these have meaningfully shaped the enquiry. Authors should use acknowledgement, citation, authorship, or ethical reflection as appropriate to the nature of the contribution.