1. Statement & Scope

The publication of peer-reviewed articles in Akademia contributes to credible, evidence-based advances in education research and practice. Ethical standards are therefore expected from all parties: authors, editors, reviewers, the publisher, and the scholarly community.

2. Editors’ Responsibilities

• Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief decides which submissions are accepted, based on editorial board input and peer-review reports, while observing laws on defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.
• Fair play / Non-discrimination. Manuscripts are evaluated for intellectual content without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, or political views.
• Confidentiality. Editors and staff must not disclose information about a submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
• Disclosure & conflicts of interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in submissions must not be used in editors’ own research.

3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

• Contribution to decisions. Reviewers provide recommendations to assist editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts.
• Timeliness. Reviews should be delivered promptly; if a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, the manuscript will be reassigned.
• Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents; Akademia uses a double-blind process.
• Objectivity. Reviews must be conducted objectively; comments should be respectful and supported by clear arguments and relevant literature.
• Source recognition. Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and report substantial similarity or overlap with other publications.
• Disclosure & conflicts of interest. Information obtained through review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers must decline assignments where conflicts exist with any author, company, or institution connected to the work.

4. Authors’ Responsibilities

• Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance; include sufficient detail and references to permit replication.
• Knowingly inaccurate or fraudulent statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

• Authors may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access where feasible and to retain such data for a reasonable time.

• Authors must ensure originality and proper citation/quotation of others’ work.
• Plagiarism is unacceptable; duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission to another journal is unethical.

• Proper acknowledgment of others’ work is required; publications that influenced the research must be cited.

• Authorship is limited to those who made significant contributions. The corresponding author must keep co-authors informed during review and confirm that all approve the final manuscript.

• Studies involving human participants (e.g., students, teachers) require ethics approval and informed consent/assent, with safeguards for minors and vulnerable groups. Any potential risks must be disclosed.

• All authors must disclose financial or substantive conflicts that could influence results or interpretation; all sources of financial support must be stated.

• Upon discovering a significant error in a published work, authors must promptly notify the editor/publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

5. Publisher’s Responsibilities

• Editorial independence. Advertising, reprints, or commercial revenue do not influence editorial decisions.
• Oversight. The publisher works with editors to ensure ethical publishing practices and, where necessary, coordinates with institutions or other journals.

6. Publication Misconduct & Actions

• Allegations. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, citation manipulation, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, or undisclosed conflicts will be investigated by the editors.
• Editorial actions. Depending on findings, actions may include rejection, request for revision, correction/erratum, expression of concern, or retraction in line with COPE guidance.
• Transparency. Authors will be notified of decisions; institutions may be contacted where appropriate.