The Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development (SPJRD) and its publisher, the University of Southeastern Philippines (USeP), strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in research publications. The Editorial Team, Board of Advisers, authors, and Publication Unit staff are dedicated to fully adhering to the following policies:
I. Publication Credit: authorship credit must be given to researcher(s) who genuinely completed or to which they made a major contribution. The primary authorship and other publishing credits fairly reflect the researcher's distinct scientific or professional achievements, regardless of the academic rank of the contributor (s). One is not automatically entitled to authorship credit just because they possess an official title, such as department head among others. For other exceptional circumstances, like teacher-student research tandem, a student is acknowledged as the lead author on any work that has several authors and is primarily based on their thesis and dissertation. As early as is practical and as necessary throughout the research and publication processes, faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students. An agreement between and among authors and /or co-authors must be signed.
II. Duplicate Publication: researcher(s) should not submit and/or publish any published data as their own original work. A new manuscript is submitted that has identical theories, information, points of discussion, and/or conclusions, as a paper that has already been published must be avoided. This is similar to plagiarism, except that the identical data, pictures, and study hypotheses are repeated in another publication instead of copying sentences verbatim. The author is required to submit proof of originality.
III. Simultaneous Submission: Authors should generally refrain from publishing pieces that essentially summarize the same study in more than one journal or major publication. When submitting their manuscripts, authors are required to attest that their work is original and that it is not already under consideration for publication by another scientific journal. As a result, it may end up being published by two different journals, which is undesirable and regarded as an unethical publishing practice.
IV. Self-citation: It is not allowed to cite one's own published work in papers published after the one being reported that is not related to it. Most of the scientific community views this as unethical. Self-citations are, however, sometimes unavoidable because authors may have published a substantial amount of literature in their specialty and the succeeding publication is simply a continuation of earlier ones. The current paper's scope should not, however, be expanded upon by the author to credit their own work.
V. Sharing Research Data for Verification: The researcher(s) does not withhold the data from other qualified professionals who wish to reevaluate the findings and who solely intend to utilize the data for that purpose after research findings are published. This is if participant confidentiality can be maintained unless there are legal restrictions on the release of proprietary data. This does not prevent researchers from asking if these individuals or groups pay the costs associated with supplying such information. The researcher(s) may only utilize shared data for the stated purpose after requesting it from other researchers to use it in reanalysis to confirm the validity of the substantive claims. requesting that any additional uses of the data be subject to prior written consent from the researcher(s).
I. Reporting Guidelines: When presenting the results of original research, authors should be truthful about the work they did and be objective about their relevance and influence. The underlying data should be accurately reflected in the manuscript. The document should have sufficient details and citations to allow another person to cite the research work. Statements that are intentionally false or erroneous are unacceptable and unethical.
II. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their writings are entirely unique, and if they have taken concepts or language from others, they must ensure that they have appropriately acknowledged or quoted them. Researcher/s must uphold a fifteen percent (15%) or below similarity index through Turnitin web-based plagiarism detection software.
III. Acknowledgement of Sources: Giving credit where credit is due for other people's work is always vital. In addition, the writers should mention works that contributed to defining the nature of the topic under discussion.
IV. Authorship of the Manuscript: The right to sign one's name should only be granted to individuals who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. All contributors who made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors. People who made significant contributions to the study endeavor should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.
V. The corresponding author should make sure that all suitable co-authors (as described above) are listed in the manuscript's author's list and that any unsuitable co-authors are left out. Additionally, they should confirm that all co-authors have reviewed the paper's final text, given their approval, and given their permission for it to be submitted for publication. If any authors need to be removed or added by the corresponding author, the Publication Board will wait for a confirmation email from them.
VI. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: When an author has a connection to another organization that might influence the study's financial, economic, legal, or professional findings. This is why any substantial financial or other conflicts of interest that could be assumed to influence the findings or how they are interpreted in the publication should be disclosed by all authors. A disclosure form issued by the Division must be executed to disclose all funding sources for the project.
VII. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: Any significant errors or inconsistencies in the author's own published work must be quickly reported to the Publication Board, who must then consult with the author to decide whether to retract the paper or publish an appropriate erratum.
C. PEER REVIEW
C.1 Editor Responsibilities
I. Accountability: A peer-reviewed journal's editor oversees choosing which articles submitted to the journal should be published and is responsible for everything published in the journal. The editor may be guided in making these decisions by the editorial board's journal principles as well as legal requirements for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may seek advice from other editors or reviewers when determining what to publish. To maintain the integrity of the academic record and avoid having business requirements compromise intellectual and ethical standards (such as the moral conduct of research involving vulnerable populations or groups of people or animals), the editor should be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.
II. Fairness: Regardless of the author's race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political belief (s), the editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual quality. The only parties with knowledge of a manuscript that the editor is considering are the author(s), reviewers, and potential reviewers, and, in rare situations, the members of the editorial board, if suitable.
III. Confidentiality: The only people who should be informed of a manuscript submitted by the Editorial Board are the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
IV. Complaints and Appeals: The editor requests the assistance of the publishing connections (whistleblowers) in recording and documenting the claim (e.g., data manipulation or fabrication, text recycling, plagiarism, research misconduct). The report should contain detailed information about the situation (who, what, when, where, and why), and specifics about the relevant texts/articles should be provided in cases of plagiarism and content recycling.
V. Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues: When considering retracting, expressing concern over, and making revisions in relation to published articles, the editor shall be guided by University Publication Unit Guidelines for Retracting Articles.
VI. The editor may not use unpublished information revealed in a submitted work for separate research projects without the author's prior written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained from peer review must be kept confidential and not exploited for personal gain.
VII. The editor is committed to making sure that commercial revenue—whether from advertising, reprints, or other sources—does not affect or have any consequence on editorial decisions. The editor should make every effort to ensure that the peer review procedure is fair and appropriate. Editors should refrain from reading and evaluating manuscripts in which they have financial, personal, or other ties to any of the authors, organizations, or (potentially) institutions associated with the papers. They should request that the article be reviewed and evaluated by a co-editor, associate editor, or another editorial board member instead. Editors should report any changes that are found after the article has been published if any contributors fail to disclose any relevant competing interests. If additional action is required, it should be performed, such as publishing a retraction or expressing concern.
VII. Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations: Editors are responsible for safeguarding the accuracy of the written record by making corrections and retractions as necessary and by investigating any suspicion of research or publication misconduct. Editors must investigate both editorial and reviewer misconduct. An editor should respond appropriately when moral questions are brought up regarding a manuscript that has been submitted or a piece of published work.
C.2 Reviewer Responsibilities
I. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in editing judgments and may help the author improve the text through editorial communication with the editor.
II. Promptness: Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate the research presented in a submission or who understands that it will be impossible for them to complete the review in a timely manner should notify the editor right away so that substitute reviewers can be contacted.
III. Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted for consideration must be handled with confidentiality. Other than with the editor's permission, they cannot be displayed to or discussed with others.
IV. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews ought to be carried out impartially. It is unacceptable to criticize the author personally. Referees should clearly state their opinions and provide relevant justifications.
V. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should point out any pertinent published works that the authors have not cited. Any claim that a certain observation, deduction, or argument has already been recorded should be supported by the appropriate citation. Any significant overlap or resemblance between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data that the reviewer is aware of should be brought to the editor's notice.
VI. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Peer review-derived privileged knowledge or ideas must be kept secret and not used for one's own gain. Reviewers should avoid considering manuscripts for which they have competing, cooperative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, businesses, or organizations associated with the submission.
SPJRD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
The publisher allows authors to copy and distribute the article in any medium or format in unadapted form for noncommercial purposes, and as long as the appropriate attribution and credit are given for the published work.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Authors who wish to publish in the SPJRD shall accept the following conditions:
I. Authors retain copyright and grant the SPJRD right of first publication.
II. Authors are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in SPJRD.
III. Authors should not post their submitted work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) prior to or during the submission process, as this may cause nomenclatural problems.
IV. The present paper submitted to the SPJRD should not have been submitted to another journal, or will it be in the next month after the initial submission to SPJRD. All co-authors must be aware of the present submission.
V. When authorship is shared, the name that appears as primary/lead author (or first mention in the series of names) is the one that meets these editorial requirements.
a. Submits the paper through the SPJRD’s OJS site – its online manuscript submission, tracking, and revision system. Here, he or she acquires an exclusive login name and password.
b. With his/her name registered in the system, the author makes use of its functions during the whole editorial and review process, carrying out the revisions until the article is tabled for publication (assigned its volume and issue numbers).