Ethical Guidelines for the Author(s)

The following ethical guidelines are obligatory for all author(s) violations of which may result in application of   penalties   by   the   editor,   including   but   not   limited to    the    suspension or revocation of publishing privileges.

Reporting Standards

• It is the author(s)' responsibility to ensure that   the   research   report   and   data   contain adequate detail and references to the sources of information in order to allow others to reproduce the
• Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are

Originality and Plagiarism

• It is the author(s)' responsibility to ascertain that s/he   has submitted an entirely original work, giving due credit, by virtue of proper citations, to the works and/or words of others where they have been used.
• Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not
• Material quoted verbatim from the author(s)' previously published   work   or   other   sources must be placed in quotation
• In case the manuscript has a    similarity index of more than 19%, it will either be rejected or left at the discretion of the Editorial Board for the purposes of a conditional.

Declaration

• Authors are required to provide an undertaking/declaration stating   that   the   manuscript under consideration contains solely their original work that is not under consideration for publishing in any other journal in any
• Authors may submit a manuscript previously published in abstracted form, for g. in the proceedings of an annual meeting, or in a   periodical with limited circulation and availability such as reports by the Government agencies or a University.
• A manuscript that is co-authored must be accompanied by an undertaking explicitly stating that each author has contributed substantially towards the preparation of the manuscript in order to claim the right to authorship.
• It is the responsibility of the corresponding author that s/he has ensured that all those who have substantially contributed to the   manuscripts   have   been   included   in   the   author   list and they have agreed to the order of

Multiple, Redundant, and Current Publication

• Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially   the   same   research   to   more than one journal or publication except it is a re-submission of a rejected or withdrawn
• Authors may re-publish previously conducted research that has been substantially altered or corrected using more meticulous analysis or by adding more data.
• The authors and editor must agree to the secondary   publication,   which   must   cite   the primary references and reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary
• Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources

• A paper must always contain a proper acknowledgment of the work of others, including clear indications of the sources of all information quoted or offered,   except what is common knowledge.
• The author(s) must also acknowledge the contributions of people, organizations, and institutes who assisted the process of research,   including those who provided technical help, writing assistance, or financial funding (in the acknowledgment).
• It is the duty of the author(s) to conduct a literature review and properly cite the original publications that describe closely related work.

Authorship Credit

• Authorship of the work may only be credited to those who have made a noteworthy contribution in conceptualization, design, conducting, data analysis, and writing up of the
• It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to include the name(s) of only those co-authors who have made significant contributions to the work.
• The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the

final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research should be acknowledged for their contribution in an "Acknowledgement" section.

Privacy of Participants

• Authors must respect the privacy of the participant of the research and must not use any information obtained from them without their informed consent.
• Authors should ensure that only information that improves understanding of the study is shared.
• Authors must ensure that in instances where the identity of the participant needs to be revealed in the study, explicit and informed consent of the concerned party is obtained.
• In the case of the demise of a participant, consent must be obtained from the family of the deceased.

Data Access and Retention

• If any question arises about the accuracy or validity of the research work during the review process, the author(s) should provide raw data to the.

Images

• The author(s) should ensure that images included in an account of the research performed or in the data collection as part of the research are free from manipulation,
• The author(s) must provide an accurate description of how the images were generated and

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

• The potential and relevant competing financial, personal, social, or other interests of all author(s) that might be affected by the publication of the results contained in the manuscript must be conveyed to the editor.
• The author(s) should disclose any potential conflict of interest at the earliest possible stage, including but not limited to employment, consultancies, honoraria, patent applications/registrations, grants, or other
• All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed alongside a   brief overview of the role played if any by the responses during various stages of the research.

Copyright

• IJDEEL by Department of Education, IIUI is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial0 International License. Based on a work at www.iiu.edu.pk. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at Licensing and Copyright. All articles published by IJDEEL are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source are appropriately cited as specified by the Creative Commons Attribution License.
• © By Department of Education (Directorate of Distance Education) International Islamic University Islamabad. IJDEEL by International Islamic University Islamabad is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.iiu.edu.pk.  All articles published by IJDEEL are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial0 International License. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited as specified by the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License.

Manuscript Acceptance and Rejection

• The review period can last between 1-2 months or longer and during this period the author(s) reserve the right to contact the Editor to ask about the status of the review.
• Once the review process has been completed, the author will be informed about the status of the manuscript which could either be an acceptance, rejection or      In the case of rejection, the author(s) reserves the right to publish the article elsewhere.
• In case of revisions, the author(s) must provide an exposition of all corrections made in the manuscript and the revised manuscript should, then, go through the process of affirmation of revisions and be accepted or rejected accordingly.
• In case of dissatisfaction over the decision of rejection, the author can appeal the decision by contacting the Editor.

Ethical Guidelines For the Reviewers

Preamble:

Review of the manuscript by reviewers is not only an essential component of formal scholarly engagement but is also a fundamental step in the publication process as it aids the Editor in editorial decision making.    It also allows the author(s) to improve their manuscript through editorial communications. Scholars accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility to complete this assignment professionally.   The quality, credibility, and reputation of a journal also depend on the peer-review process. The peer-review process depends on the trust and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. These professionals are the momentum arm of the review process, but they may be performing this job without any formal training. As a consequence, they may be (especially young professionals) unaware of their ethical obligations. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan wants to list down 'Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers' so that all reviewers provide their valuable services in a standardized manner.

Suitability and Promptness

The Reviewers should:

• Inform the Editor, if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review and s/he should inform the Editor immediately after receiving a request.
• Be responsible to act promptly and submit review reports on
• Immediately inform the Editor of any possible delays and suggest   another   date   of submission for a review report, and,
• Not unnecessarily delay the review process,    either by prolonged delay in submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional data/information from the   Editor or author(s).

Standards of Objectivity

• The reviews should be objectively carried out with a consideration of high academic, scholarly, and scientific standards.
• All judgments should be meticulously established and maintained in order to ensure the full comprehension of the reviewer's comments by the editors and the author(s).
• Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,
• The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and,
• The reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the research paper and not influenced, either positively or negatively,   by   any   personal,   financial,   or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

• A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the Editor. The  data      included      in      the      research      paper      is      confidential       and       the reviewer shall not be allowed to use it for his/her personal study,
• A reviewer must declare any potentially conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious). In such a situation, s/he will be required to follow the journal's policies.
• A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under review is the same as his/her presently conducted a study.
• If the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias,   s/he   should immediately return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the situation.

Confidentiality

• Reviewers should consider the research paper as a confidential document and must not discuss its content on any platform except   in   cases   where   professional   advice   is   being   sought with the authorization of the Editor, and
• Reviewers are professionally and ethically   bound   not   to   disclose   the   details   of   any research paper prior to its publication without the prior approval of the

Ethical Considerations

• If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as someone else's work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its citation as a reference.
• If the reviewer suspects that results in the research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor,
• If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the Editor, and
• If the research paper is based on any previous research study or is a replica of an earlier work or the work is plagiarized for e.g. the author has not acknowledged/referenced others' work appropriately, then this should be brought in the Editor's knowledge.

Originality

For evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements:

Structure

• Does the research paper add to existing knowledge?
• Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of the research work?

If the layout and format of the paper are not according to the prescribed version, the reviewers should discuss it with the Editor or should include this observation in their review report. On the other hand, if

the research paper is exceptionally well written, the reviewer may overlook the formatting issues. At other times, the reviewers may suggest restructuring the paper before publication. The following elements should be carefully evaluated:

• If there is serious problem of language or expression and the reviewer gets the impression that the research paper does   not   fulfill   linguistic   requirements   and readers   would   face   difficulties   reading   and   comprehending   the        The reviewer should record this deficiency in his/her report and suggest   the   editor   to make its proper editing. Such a situation may arise when the author(s)’ native language is not English.
• Whether the data presented in the paper is original or reproduced from previously conducted or published work. The papers which reflect originality should be given preference for,
• The clarity of illustrations including photographs,   models,   charts,   images, and figures is essential to If there is duplication then it should be reported in the review report. Similarly, descriptions provided in the “Results” section should correspond with the data presented in tables/figures,   if not then it should be clearly listed in the review report.
• Critically review the statistical analysis of the Also check the rationale and appropriateness of the specific analysis.
• The reviewers should read the “Methodology” section in detail and make sure that the author(s) has demonstrated an understanding of the procedures being used and presented in the manuscript.
• The relationship between “Data, Findings, and Discussion” requires a thorough evaluation Unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that are not based on the presented data are not acceptable.
• Further questions to be addressed are whether: the organization of the research paper is appropriate or deviates from the standard or prescribed format?
• Does the author(s) follow the guidelines prescribed by the journal for the preparation and submission of the manuscript?
• Is the research paper free from typographical errors?

Review Report:

• The reviewer must explicitly write his/her observations in the section of 'comments' because the author(s) will only have access to the comments reviewers have made,
• For writing a review report, the reviewers are requested to complete a prescribed form (s).
• It is helpful for both the Editor and author(s) if the reviewer writes a brief summary in the first section of the review report. This summary should comprise the reviewer's final decision and inferences drawn from a full.
• Any personal comments on the author(s) should be avoided and final remarks should be written in a courteous and positive manner,
• Indicating any deficiencies is important. For the understanding of the Editor and author(s), the reviewers should highlight these deficiencies in some detail with This should help justify the comments made by the reviewer,
• When a reviewer makes a decision regarding the research paper, it should be clearly indicated as 'Reject', 'Accept without revision', or 'Need Revision' and either of the decisions should have
• The reviewers should indicate the revisions clearly and comprehensively and show a willingness to confirm the revisions submitted by the author(s) if the Editor wishes so, and,
• The final decision about publishing a research paper (either accept or reject) will solely rest with the Editor and it is not a reviewer's job to take part in this The editor will surely consider the reviewer's comments and have a right to send the paper for another opinion or send it back to the author(s) for revision before making the final decision.