Kelajak International Group is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical publishing. Our policies follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), along with additional measures designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability throughout the scholarly publishing process.

Integrity in Authorship
Authorship must be granted only to individuals who have made a meaningful and substantial contribution to the research. “Ghost authorship,” “gift authorship,” and honorary authorship are strictly prohibited.

Authorship Criteria (Based on ICMJE Standards)
An individual qualifies as an author only if all four of the following conditions are met:

• significant contribution to study design, data collection, data analysis, or interpretation;
• drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for intellectual content;
• approving the final version of the manuscript for publication;
• taking responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Non-Author Contributors
Individuals who contributed in limited ways (e.g., technical assistance, administrative support, funding acquisition) should not be listed as authors. Their contributions should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section with a clear description of their role.

Changes in Authorship
Authorship changes are allowed only under justified and exceptional circumstances.
a. Before Publication

• all authors must provide written agreement for adding, removing, or reordering authors;
• the corresponding author must submit a formal explanation for the change.

b. After Publication

• a formal request signed by all original authors is required;
• if authors cannot reach consensus:
• the journal may initiate institutional mediation, or
• issue a correction notice outlining the authorship change;
• confirmed authorship misconduct may lead to retraction.

Ethical Considerations in Research Involving Human Participants
Informed Consent
Participants must provide informed consent before taking part in any study.
For minors, consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians.
For online or EdTech-related studies, consent forms must specify the type of data being collected (e.g., LMS logs, screen recordings, platform interactions).

Privacy and Data Security

• All personally identifiable information must be anonymized.
• Use of identifiable data requires explicit written permission.
• Compliance with GDPR, FERPA, or relevant regional data protection laws must be stated.

Ethical Approval

• Research conducted in schools, universities, or other institutions must receive IRB or institutional ethics approval.
• Studies conducted in collaboration with private companies (e.g., EdTech firms) must explicitly disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Transparent Peer Review

• Kelajak International Group employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality.
• Authors may opt for open peer review after acceptance.
• Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback.
• Reviewers who engage in unethical behavior (e.g., idea theft, intentional delay) will be permanently blacklisted.

Editorial Independence and Accountability

• Editors evaluate manuscripts based solely on their scholarly merit, independent of authors’ backgrounds or external influence.
• Editors and editorial staff must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts if a conflict of interest exists.
• Authors may submit formal appeals if they disagree with editorial decisions.

Research Misconduct: Definitions and Procedures
Definition of Misconduct
Kelajak International Group defines research misconduct as any action that compromises scholarly integrity, including:

• Plagiarism — use of text, ideas, or data without proper attribution;
• Fabrication or Falsification — creating or altering data to misrepresent findings;
• Duplicate Submission/Publication — submitting the same work to multiple journals or republishing previously published material without disclosure;
• Citation Manipulation — excessive self-citation or coercive citation practices;
• Authorship Misconduct — adding undeserving authors or excluding legitimate contributors;
• AI-Based Misconduct — generating fake data, fabricated reviews, or undisclosed AI-generated content.

Preventive Measures
To reduce misconduct risks, the journal applies:

• Pre-screening: all submissions undergo automatic plagiarism checks and manual review of data integrity;
• Author Declarations: authors must confirm originality, disclose any AI use, and affirm compliance with ethical standards;
• Open Data Policy: authors are encouraged to share raw data whenever ethically appropriate.

Handling Misconduct Allegations
a. Initial Assessment

• The Editorial Office conducts a preliminary evaluation and may request evidence (e.g., raw data, IRB approvals).
• Confidentiality is maintained for both whistleblowers and accused parties.

b. COPE-Based Procedures

• Minor issues: corrected via an erratum or correction notice.
• Major misconduct: results in immediate retraction with a transparent explanation.
• If needed, the journal consults the authors’ institution or ethics committee for further investigation.

c. Sanctions

• Authors: repeat offenders may be blacklisted for 1–5 years depending on severity.
• Reviewers/Editors: unethical behavior leads to removal from editorial roles or reviewer duties.

d. Transparency

• Retracted papers remain accessible online with a visible “Retracted” watermark and linked retraction notice.
• Annual summaries of misconduct cases (anonymized) are published to maintain transparency.

Appeals and Complaints Policy
6.1 Appeals of Editorial Decisions

• Authors may file a written appeal within 30 days of receiving a decision.
• Appeals must include a detailed rationale for reconsideration.
• The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief will re-evaluate the case.

Procedural Complaints

• Issues such as prolonged processing times may be reported to the journal’s administrative office.

Ethics-Related Complaints

• Allegations of misconduct will be investigated following COPE procedures.
• Serious cases may be escalated to institutional authorities.

Note: Frivolous, malicious, or unsubstantiated complaints will not be considered.