PrimEarly: Journal of Elementary Education and Early Childhood Studies is committed to maintaining research integrity, publication ethics, and an accurate scholarly record. Allegations concerning submitted manuscripts or published articles will be handled fairly, objectively, and on the basis of evidence, with reference to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

An allegation does not, in itself, establish research misconduct. All parties concerned will be given an appropriate opportunity to provide explanations and supporting evidence before a decision is reached.

1. Scope

This policy covers allegations of research and publication misconduct, including data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication, authorship manipulation, peer-review manipulation, and violations of ethical requirements concerning research participants. The journal also addresses undisclosed relevant conflicts of interest and other practices that may compromise the integrity of research or publication.

In elementary education and early childhood education research, particular attention is given to the ethical collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of data involving children, students, teachers, parents, and educational institutions. Relevant concerns may include the misrepresentation of research findings, unauthorized use of participant data, breaches of confidentiality, inadequate informed consent, and failure to obtain required ethical approval.

Differences in educational theories, pedagogical approaches, research methods, interpretations of findings, or scholarly conclusions do not, in themselves, constitute misconduct. The assessment focuses on research integrity, the accurate reporting of evidence, appropriate attribution, and compliance with applicable ethical standards.

2. Reporting Allegations

Authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, institutions, and other interested parties may report suspected misconduct through the official contact details provided on the PrimEarly journal website.

Reports should identify the relevant manuscript or published article, describe the concern specifically, indicate the relevant passages or materials, and provide available supporting evidence. Such evidence may include comparative publications, research documents, data records, ethics approval documents, or verifiable links to relevant sources.

Complainants are encouraged to provide contact information to facilitate clarification and follow-up. Anonymous reports may also be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The editorial team may request additional information or evidence before determining whether further assessment is warranted.

3. Initial Assessment

The editor conducts an initial assessment to determine the relevance of the allegation, the adequacy of the supporting evidence, and the potential implications for the reliability or ethical acceptability of the manuscript or article.

The assessment may involve examining the manuscript, comparing relevant sources, reviewing submission records, checking research documentation, and consulting individuals with appropriate expertise.

Similarity-checking software may be used as an assessment tool when plagiarism is suspected. However, a similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism. The editor will consider the context of the matching text, the nature of the material, citation practices, and the adequacy of attribution.

4. Clarification and Opportunity to Respond

Where sufficient grounds exist for further examination, the editor will contact the authors or other relevant parties and explain the concerns requiring clarification.

Authors may be asked to provide original data, research instruments, data collection records, analysis procedures, source materials, ethics approval documentation, informed consent records where applicable, or other relevant evidence supporting the research.

The parties concerned will be given a reasonable timeframe specified by the editor to provide explanations and supporting documentation. Further clarification may be requested if the initial response is incomplete or insufficient.

Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct. However, the journal may proceed with its assessment based on the available evidence when a party fails to respond within the specified timeframe.

5. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reports, supporting evidence, correspondence, and assessment materials will be handled confidentially and shared only with individuals whose involvement is necessary to resolve the case.

The identity of the complainant and other parties will be protected as far as reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair assessment and applicable obligations.

Editors and other individuals with a conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process. If an allegation concerns an editor, responsibility for handling the case will be transferred to another editor or an independent person appointed by the publisher who has no conflict of interest.

Independent expert assessment may be sought where necessary to ensure a fair and objective evaluation.

6. Coordination with Institutions

PrimEarly is responsible for editorial decisions and for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of its publication record. However, investigating research conduct or the behaviour of researchers may require the authority and expertise of the relevant institutions.

Where an allegation cannot be resolved through editorial clarification, or where a formal investigation is necessary, the journal may contact the institution where the research was conducted, the authors' affiliated institutions, or another competent authority.

In cases involving research with children or other potentially vulnerable participants, the journal may seek clarification regarding ethical approval, informed consent, parental or guardian permission where applicable, participant protection, and compliance with institutional research ethics requirements.

The journal may request relevant findings from institutional investigations. Editorial decisions will take account of the available evidence, responses from the parties concerned, and institutional findings. Nevertheless, the journal may take appropriate editorial action to protect readers and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record when sufficient evidence establishes a problem with a publication.

7. Measures During Assessment

For unpublished manuscripts, the journal may suspend peer review, editorial processing, or publication while a serious concern is being examined.

For published articles, the journal may issue an expression of concern when serious questions about the integrity, ethical acceptability, or reliability of an article remain unresolved, the available evidence is inconclusive, or a relevant investigation is ongoing.

An expression of concern informs readers of unresolved issues and does not constitute a final finding of misconduct. The journal will review the matter when additional evidence or investigation findings become available and take further action where appropriate.

8. Decisions and Follow-Up Actions

The journal's response will reflect the nature of the allegation, the strength of the evidence, the explanations provided, and the implications for research integrity and the publication record.

Possible outcomes include:

• Closing the case: When the allegation lacks sufficient supporting evidence or the concern has been satisfactorily explained.
• Requesting revisions or rejecting a manuscript: When an unpublished manuscript contains identifiable problems that require correction or cannot be accepted in its current form.
• Publishing a correction: When an error can be corrected without undermining the overall reliability of the article.
• Issuing or updating an expression of concern: When serious questions remain unresolved or further investigation is required.
• Retracting an article: When sufficient grounds for retraction exist under relevant publication ethics guidance.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and does not necessarily indicate intentional misconduct. Honest errors that render research findings unreliable may also warrant retraction.

Correction, expression of concern, and retraction notices will explain the reasons for the editorial action and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles will generally remain accessible with clear identification of their retracted status to preserve the transparency of the publication record, except where exceptional circumstances require removal of content.

9. Communication, Documentation, and Appeals

PrimEarly will securely maintain records of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessment procedures, and editorial decisions. Access to these records will be restricted to authorized individuals.

Relevant parties will be informed of the progress and outcome of the assessment to the extent possible without compromising confidentiality, the fairness of the process, or any ongoing investigation. The time required to resolve a case will depend on its complexity and the need to coordinate with authors, institutions, or independent experts.

A party wishing to challenge an editorial decision may submit an appeal through the journal's official contact channels, providing clear reasons and any additional supporting evidence. Appeals will be considered by an individual without a conflict of interest and, wherever possible, by someone who was not involved in the original decision.

A case may be reopened if material new evidence becomes available that could affect the original assessment or decision.

PrimEarly is committed to handling all allegations responsibly, protecting research participants, supporting ethical educational research, and ensuring that editorial actions contribute to the accuracy, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.