The Journal of Higher Education in Prison (JHEP) aims to follow the highest standards of ethical practices for journal publication. We ask that all participants in our community adhere to the following.
Authors should ensure that:
- their work is original and written by them (copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper without attribution is unacceptable, as is any other form of plagiarism);
- their work has not been previously published, and has been submitted only to our journal until a full and final review is provided;
- where material is taken from other sources (including their own published writing), the source is clearly cited and that, where appropriate, permission is obtained;
- their work does not infringe on any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights;
- their data is not manipulated;
- their data is their own, or that they have permission to use data reproduced in their paper and is citied as such;
- they can provide access to raw data and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication (editors may ask for raw data, during the submission process or afterward);
- any real or apparent conflicting or competing interest is clearly stated on submission of their paper (including funding assistance);
- they adhere to all research ethics guidelines of their discipline, particularly where human or animal subjects are involved, including IRB approval when required;
- they contact the Editor to identify and correct any material errors upon discovery, whether prior or subsequent to publication of their work;
- authorship of the paper is accurately represented, including ensuring that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work, and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication;
- they are transparent. For example, if an author is not sure whether her paper is original (for instance, whether it might constitute duplicate publication), she should inform the journal's Editor. If the Editor decides it is appropriate to publish, the paper itself should state clearly any potential overlap.
Reviewers should ensure that:
- they maintain confidentiality during the entire review process;
- they immediately alert theEditor of any real or potential competing interest that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing and decline to review where appropriate;
- they provide a review that is constructive, collegial and contributes to the development of a community of practice;
- they conduct themselves fairly and impartially.
JHEP aims to follow respectful practices within our community and provides the following additional guidelines for Reviewers:
- approach manuscripts as coaches or mentors, offering specific and detailed information while making suggestions for improvement;
- use a collegial tone by writing in first or second person to convey personal care in providing feedback;
- start the review by conveying your understanding of the central idea and key contribution of the manuscript.This shows care for the writers and their ideas;
- summarize strengths and areas for improvement up front, and follow with details on the respective areas of the paper;
- provide suggestions that are specific and concise. Feedback should be well-organized. Please refer to page and line numbers when appropriate;
- offer constructive feedback for addressing areas of weakness in the manuscript with regard to writing coherency, style, grammar, or structure; presentation of data; interpretations of data;
- refrain from “re-writing” the paper while offering suggestions. Do not offer suggestions that would compromise the core of the manuscript;
- if making a decision to reject a manuscript, demonstrate appreciation for the submission, offer any suggestions for improvement, and encourage writers to submit in the future, perhaps recommending a more suitable outlet/publication;
- do not offer opinions on the likeliness of publication, except when assigned to do so in the “decision”section of the process;
- commit and follow through with all deadlines.
Editors should ensure that:
- they maintain and promote consistent ethical policies;
- they oversee and act to enforce those policies as needed in a fair and consistent manner;
- they protect confidentiality during the review process;
- they exercise the highest standards of personality integrity in their work, recognizing and planning for instances where they could have a competing interest or the appearance of a competing interest and excuse themselves when appropriate;
- they work with authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members as necessary to ensure they are sufficiently advised regarding ethics and publishing policies, and that our stewardship on ethical matters is fair, unbiased, and timely;
- they inform the authors of mistakes inside the submitted text;
- they do not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the authors.
Everyone, including Editorial Board Members should:
- promote fairness and equity, and oppose discrimination (e.g. by not basing decisions on race, gender, gender presentation, sexual orientation, current or former incarceration status, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy or any other marker of personal or social identity);
- promote the transparency of and respect for the academic record;
- respect the confidentiality of others;
- approach their participation with JHEP in the spirit of being an engaged, supportive and respectful member of the higher education in prison community;
- be transparent about real, apparent, and/or potential competing interests.
JHEP Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
At the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison, we are committed to ensuring that decisions on publishing articles in JHEP are made based on appropriate processes of peer review, and are not influenced by any financial matter (e.g. publication fee, publication fee assistance),affiliation (or non-affiliation) to any organization or any other conditions.All submitted manuscripts go through our stated review process for authenticity, ethical issues, and useful contributions. Editorial decisions are primarily based on the recommendations of the peer reviewers and at times, by the recommendations of the Advisory Board and in rare instances, by the decisions of the Editors. Therefore, to ensure integrity in our scholarly publishing, all related parties (editors, reviewers and authors) are required to follow the ethical standards in performing their respective roles.
We will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by any participant in our community (e.g.editors, reviewers, authors, readers). We retain the right to pursue any allegations of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), plagiarism, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage.
Neither the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison, the editors nor the Editorial Board of JHEP are responsible for authors’ expressed opinions, views, and the contents of the published manuscripts in the journal. The originality, proofing of manuscripts, and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors.
We defend the freedom, without restriction or censorship, to disseminate and publish reports of research, and in some cases, personal narratives and creative expression. We resist all efforts to limit the exercise of academic freedom and intellectual freedom, including the language choices made by authors, recognizing the right of criticism by authors, contributors or readers.