top of page


Statement on Publication Ethics

Statement on Publication Ethics by Research

in Arts Education Semi-Annual Journal

Approved at the Annual Meeting of the
Journal Advisory Board on January 22 nd , 2022


Research in Arts Education Semi-Annual Journal (Research in Arts Education; ISSN 1680-435X) is dedicated to publishing research papers in the arts education field with an aim to enhancing the research quality of arts education in Taiwan. Research in Arts Education rejects any research papers that involve any misconduct, including: plagiarism, multiple submissions, data fabrication, improper authorship, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. Research in Arts Education follows the Publishing Ethics ( recommended by Elsevier and the COPE Guidelines ( established by COPE (Committee of Publication Ethics). The content hereinafter involves the duties of authors, editors, and reviewers and is excerpted from the aforementioned sources with a few minor changes:


  1.  Duties of Authors

    1. Research Paper Standards
      Authors should present an accurate account of research data, research materials, important details, and
      relevant literature in the paper. Any conduct that violates academic or research ethics, such as fraudulent orknowingly inaccurate statements, is unacceptable.

    2. Research Ethics Review
      If the research involves devices, objects, research procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazardsinherent in their use, or the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscriptcontains a detailed statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws andinstitutional guidelines and that the research ethics committee(s) have approved them. For researchinvolving human subjects, the informed consent of the subjects or their legal representatives or guardiansmust be obtained, and the privacy of the subjects must be protected permanently.

    3. Originality and Plagiarism
      The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used thework and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission of the text,pictures, sound, and video used have been obtained when necessary.

    4. Data Access and Retention
      Authors should retain the original materials and, when necessary, provide them to the review committee
      during the review process.

    5. Submission Ethics
      Authors should not submit essentially the same paper to multiple journals or publications. Multiple submissions for one manuscript are against publishing ethics and are unacceptable.

    6. Acknowledgement of Sources
      Any citations to the work of others must be explicitly marked, and factors influencing the reported work
      should be explicitly listed. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussionwith third parties, must not be used or reported without written permission from the source. Informationobtained from reviewing the work or subsidy applications of others must not be used in the manuscriptwithout explicit written permission from the source.

    7. Conflict of Interest
      Authors should publicly disclose all conflicts of interest that may be considered influencing the results or theinterpretation of their work. At the same time, information on conflicts of interest must be provided as soonas possible, and all sources of financial supports must be disclosed before the reference page.

    8. Errors in Research Work
      When an author discovers an error or significant flaw in their own work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal's editorial board or the publisher, and cooperate with the retracting or correcting 
      of the errors in the work. If the editorial board or the publisher learns from a third party that a research work
      contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate in retracting or correcting of the errors in the work, or provide information when necessary to prove the accuracy of the work.

    9. Authorship of the Paper
      All major contributors to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the paper, or thoseinvolved in the research project, must be recognized in the acknowledgment section or listed as co-authors.Corresponding authors should ensure that all contributing co-authors are listed on the paper, and that alllisted authors have contributed to the paper. Corresponding authors should ensure that all co-authors haveseen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publicationbeforehand.

    10. Change of Authors
      Authors should provide the definitive list and order of authors at the time of the original submission.After the journal receives the first draft, any addition or deletion of authors will not be accepted. Authorsrequiring rearrangement of authors must submit such requests prior to the secondary review for approvalby the editorial board. The following documents should be submitted for review by the editorial board:
      (1) The reason for the rearrangement of the order and
      (2) Written consent from all authors to rearrange
      the order (e-mails or mails are acceptable).

  2. Duties of the Editorial Board​

    1. Peer Review
      Based on the research topic itself and the results of peer reviews, the editorial board can decide whether topublish the submitted work or not. The editorial board should regularly review whether the review processneeds to be adjusted to maintain the academic and research quality of the journal.

    2. Fair Play
      The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexualorientation, religious belief, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

    3. Confidentiality
      Members of the editorial board, editorial assistants, and system administrators should not disclose anyinformation of the manuscript under review to any third party.

    4. Academic Integrity
      The editorial board has the right to request authors to provide review results from ethics review committeesand informed consent from participants of the research, as well as to ensure that the research complies withrelevant laws and regulations.

    5. Disclosure Principle
      (1) Without the consent of the author, the editorial board may not use the unpublished data in the submittedmanuscript for personal research.
      (2) Revision notes and suggested information provided by peer review shall not be used by the editors forpersonal purposes.
      (3) When editorial board members believe that there are potential conflicts of interest resulting fromcompetitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, orinstitutions connected to the papers, they should refrain from being involved with the review process.
      (4) The editorial board may request that contributors disclose relevant conflicts of interest information,including a statement of usage rights for images used in the submitted work. If a submittedmanuscript is disclosed to have conflicts/infringement of interest after publication, the editorialboard should take necessary measures.​

    6. Participation in Investigation
      When a submitted manuscript violates the ethics of publication, the editorial board should conduct an in-depth investigation and take appropriate measures, including contacting the authors or relevant teams andfulfilling the obligation to inform. Once a violation of academic ethics is confirmed, measures such ascorrection, retraction, or clarification should be taken immediately. The policy has retroactive effect andapplies to even published research paper.

    7. Conflict of Interest
      The editorial board should ensure that commercial interest (such as advertising) do not influence editorialdecisions, that sponsored supplements are not given special privilege during the peer review process, andthat projects with sponsored supplements must align with academic values rather than commercialinterests.

  3. Duties of Reviewers​

    1. Review Professionalism
      Reviewers should ensure that the reviewed manuscript is within their area of expertise and complete thereview within the specified time. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the researchreported in a manuscript or knows that a prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor-in-chiefand decline to participate in the review process.

    2. Conflict of Interest
      Reviewers should avoid working with the contributor currently or recently in the same department orinstitution, having a recent teacher-student relationship, or having worked for the contributor. In addition,when there are potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationshipsor connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers, reviewers shouldrefrain from being involved with the review process.

    3. Ethics
      When reviewers notice cases of plagiarism or deception in the submitted manuscript, they should providedetailed information where such plagiarism or deception is identifiable. In addition, within the scope of theirknowledge, reviewers should inform the editor-in-chief of the general similarity or partial overlap in thesubmitted manuscript. In addition, if the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, it is necessaryto check whether the author describes the process in detail in the research paper and states that theexperimental process complies with relevant laws and regulations and institutional norms and that theexperiment has been reviewed by the ethics committee(s).

    4. Confidentiality
      Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not sharethe review or information about the paper to any third party other than the editorial board, nor shall theycontact the authors directly without permission from the board.

    5. Standards of Objectivity
      Reviewers must carry out the review task impartially and objectively, and the review suggestions must beconstructive and explicitly explain the deficiencies in the submitted manuscript. Reviewers may provideobjective data to provide supporting arguments for their review suggestions.​

bottom of page