[Instructions for Authors](#instructions-for-authors) [Criteria for Authorship](#criteria-for-authorship) [Corresponding Author Responsibilities](#corresponding-author-responsibilities) [Originality and Prior Publication](#originality-and-prior-publication) [Manuscript Format](#manuscript-format) [Editorial Policies](#editorial-policies) [Copyediting](#copyediting) [Typesetting and Layout](#typesetting-and-layout) [Language](#language) [Name and Pronoun Changes](#name-and-pronoun-changes) [Copyright and Licensing](#copyright-and-licensing) [Review Process](#review-process) [Double-anonymized Peer Review](#double-anonymized-peer-review) [Developmental Review](#developmental-review) [Expectations for Reviewers](#expectations-for-reviewers) [Publication Ethics](#publication-ethics) [Allegations of Misconduct](#allegations-of-misconduct) [Conflicts of Interest](#conflicts-of-interest) [Data Sharing and Reproducibility](#data-sharing-and-reproducibility) [Corrections and Retractions](#corrections-and-retractions) [Human Subjects Research](#human-subjects-research) [Plagiarism](#plagiarism) [AI Usage Policy](#ai-usage-policy) ## Instructions for Authors ### Criteria for Authorship TERM defines authorship based on the [ICMJE authorship guidelines](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html). Specifically, a contributor must meet the following 4 criteria to be considered an author: - Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND - Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND - Final approval of the version to be published; AND - Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Those who meet some but not all of the criteria may be acknowledged in the publication, but should not be listed as an author. ### Corresponding Author Responsibilities The corresponding author must submit the manuscript and related files (e.g. supporting data files, media, etc.). Throughout the submission process, all communication related to that manuscript will be directed to and received from the corresponding author. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all authors are aware of and approve the submission of the manuscript, its content, authorship, and order of authorship. ### Originality and Prior Publication Only articles that have not been published previously, that have not been simultaneously submitted elsewhere, and that are not under review for another publication should be submitted to this journal. The journal editors will assume that submission of an article to this journal implies that all the foregoing conditions are applicable. TERM does not accept articles containing material plagiarized from other publications or authors. You must provide proper attribution in all cases where previously published material or previously used data or images are included in your manuscript. Plagiarism detected prior to publication will result in the rejection of your manuscript. Plagiarism detected after publication will lead to correction or retraction, depending on the extent of the plagiarism. ### Manuscript Format The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the submitted manuscript has been appropriately prepared for anonymous review. No individually identifiable information or references to the author(s) should be included in the manuscript or title page. In addition to removing all individually identifiable information from within the document, they should also check the document’s properties and remove any identifiable information. Articles should be written in APA style, following the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th edition. All submissions must include an abstract of 100-120 words and 3-5 keywords, which should be included in the manuscript file in APA style. In general, authors should avoid notes, but may include footnotes as necessary in compliance with APA style. The reference list should only include sources cited in the manuscript, and all sources cited in the manuscript must be included in the reference list. All references should include digital object identifiers (DOIs) when possible, and must comply with APA style, 7th edition. ## Editorial Policies ### Copyediting Professional copyediting services are provided free of charge to TERM authors who have had their manuscript accepted for publication. However, authors are expected to submit manuscripts that are free of major typographical and grammatical errors and that conform to APA formatting and citation standards. Manuscripts that are not properly formatted with be returned to the author(s) for revision prior to peer review. ### Typesetting and Layout The editors of TERM may need to may make modifications to submitted works as part of the typesetting and layout process. TERM will make no material modification to the content of the Work without the Author’s consent. Authors will have the opportunity to review proofs prior to publication. ### Language At this time, TERM publishes only English-language articles and can accept only English-language manuscripts. However, TERM welcomes submissions from authors worldwide, including those for whom English is an additional language. ### Name and Pronoun Changes All requests to make a name or pronoun change will be honored. This includes, but is not limited to, name changes because of marriage, divorce, gender affirmation, and religious conversion. TERM will not require any form of proof or supporting documentation beyond what is needed to confirm the author’s identity and will only note that a non-substantive change was made to the published article. TERM cannot control updates in indexes/databases that have picked up the original metadata, and we are unable to update citations to articles in which a name change has occurred. TERM will not notify co-authors of the change to the article; authors may choose whether or not they wish to alert their co-authors. Any misuse of this policy will be considered misconduct, and JLSC reserves the right to investigate and act against misuse. ### Copyright and Licensing As a condition of publication in TERM, authors grant to TERM first publication rights to any articles accepted for publication. Copyright for all work published in the journal is retained by the author(s). Works published in TERM will be distributed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) license. By granting a CC BY-NC license in their work, authors retain copyright ownership of the work, but they give explicit permission for others distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work. Authors may also post any version of their work online in an institutional or disciplinary repository or on a personal website. Any versions of the article posted elsewhere should include a citation and a link to the journal’s website. It is the responsibility of the authors to secure all necessary copyright permissions for the use of third-party materials in their manuscript. Authors will be required to provide written evidence of this permission upon acceptance of the manuscript. Copyright permission will not be necessary if the use is within fair use, if the work is in the public domain, or if the rightsholder has granted a Creative Commons or other license consistent with the copyright terms of TERM. ## Review Process When submitting a manuscript to the venue, the authors will select whether they would prefer to begin with a traditional, double-anonymized review approach or if they would be amenable to their paper undergoing an open, developmental review if need be. This journal is committed to offering support to individuals who may need additional assistance (e.g., early career, international scholars). Such a process also aligns with the journal’s desire to provide a humanizing review process. The goal of the open, developmental review is to pair a Developmental Editor with the authors to give them more direct feedback that will prepare their paper to then undergo a double-anonymized review process. The journal is committed to providing this open, developmental review if a) the authors request Developmental Review and b) the Editors determine that the paper would not have been desk rejected due to being out of scope for the journal. Understanding that the initial anonymously peer-reviewed decision is critical, we aim to provide transparency and guidance throughout the submission and evaluation process. ### Double-anonymized Peer Review Should authors select to undergo double-anonymized peer review, the Editors will review the paper to make sure it aligns with the philosophies and the scope of the journal. If it does not, it will be desk rejected with feedback to the authors. If it does align with the philosophies of the journal, the Editors assign the paper to an associate editor. At this point, the AE will have the opportunity to either desk reject the manuscript or take the steps to assign it to two or three reviewers. At the point that the AE sends the manuscript to reviewers, the reviewers will then make their recommendation, after which the AE delivers a decision. The AE makes either a Major Revision, Minor Revision, Reject, or Accept decision. The journal is committed to supporting the manuscript toward publication if the authors are responsive to the reviews. ### Developmental Review If authors wish to undergo developmental review, they will submit the paper through the system and include a cover letter stating that they are requesting to undergo an open, developmental review for their manuscript. When they do so, they should indicate if, in reviewing the journal’s website, there are Developmental Editors with whom they would like to work (understanding that some individuals may already be working with other authors or be otherwise unavailable). The Editors will be responsible for assessing the status of the paper, determining if developmental review is appropriate, and assigning a Developmental Editor. The author, in participating in developmental review, is committing to working with the Developmental Editor and to submitting the revised manuscript to TERM for double-anonymized peer review. ### Expectations for Reviewers As members of the editorial board, we expect that you will accept many of the requests that we send you to review or coordinate the review. **We need you to accept or decline review invitations as soon as possible, as a number of automated timelines and systems depend on the reviewer commitment date, and we aim to provide a timely review process for authors.** Instances when you should decline a review include: - When you know who the author(s) is/are, thus compromising the anonymized review process and/or potentially creating a conflict of interest; - When you do not feel as though you have the adequate expertise to review a manuscript, which you should communicate to the AE or Editor; - When you need to take a break based on your other commitments due to temporary circumstances—if you feel like you are no longer able to serve on the editorial board, please contact the Editors. In alignment with the journal’s desire to offer a humane and community-centered approach, we envision our review process to be multifaceted and to offer different options in terms of how the authors would prefer the review to look. In particular, we expect all members of the editorial board to follow these philosophies. We offer explanations behind the philosophies and potential language that members of the editorial board might use when actualizing these philosophies. - **Developmental/loving: Highlight strengths in a manuscript** - *Although it can be easy to go into the reviewing process to only analyze what you believe the author can strengthen, we want editorial board members to shine a light about what they appreciate about a paper and to help the authors consider how their strengths can be useful in addressing areas of improvement.* - Example language: “I appreciated how thorough you were in your literature review about the ways that scholars have discussed this topic. I would like to see you use the same kind of framing when describing your methodology and its relevance to this project.” - **Concrete and actionable: Articulating specificities** - *As scholars, one of the most frustrating experiences is reading a review from someone who offers broad generalities about your paper, making it difficult to make changes based on their feedback. Instead, we want reviewers to be as specific as possible with what authors should do in order to better their work.* - Rather than “Right now, your literature review reads quite vaguely,” you may consider language such as “At the moment, your literature review does not engage in sufficient synthesis of the literature. For instance, on pages 5–6, you only speak in-depth about 2 studies. From my perspective, you have missed formative works like those written by [XYZ]. Consequently, the reader does not understand the full breadth of individuals who have studied this topic and have not learned how you plan to intervene into this literature.” ## Publication Ethics ### Allegations of Misconduct Any allegations of misconduct may be directed to the editors at [email to be determined]. Allegations will be handled in accordance with [COPE Guidelines](https://publicationethics.org/guidance). ### Conflicts of Interest TERM is committed to publications that are as transparent and bias-free as possible. To that end, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could appear to influence or compromise the validity of the publication. This requirement is designed to ensure academic rigor and foster readers' trust in the information presented. A conflict of interest must be declared if there is any reason why the information or the interpretation of information being presented may have been influenced by a personal or financial relationship with other organisations or individuals, or if these relationships could be reasonably perceived by other people as having compromised objectivity. All authors, editors, and reviewers should declare any competing interests that they may have as early as possible. Examples of competing interests: - receipt of payment, in any form, from an organisation or individual related to the subject matter - commercial interests, such as ownership of stocks or shares in organisations directly related to the subject matter - receipt of grants or funding - membership on relevant boards - related patents or applications for patents - gifts - known relationships that would hinder impartiality (e.g., colleagues, family, mentor, previous supervisor/student). - political, religious or ideological interests Competing interests should be declared to cover *at least* the previous 5 years. If a relationship from more than 5 years ago could still be deemed to influence decision-making, it should still be declared. Authors should place the conflict of interest section at the end of the manuscript, immediately before the reference list. Reviewers should list any conflicts of interest in the Biography section of their reviewer page. ### Data Sharing and Reproducibility Authors are encouraged to engage in transparent research processes. The journal also acknowledges that reproducibility, as a concept, may not apply to all ways of doing research or conceptualizations of knowledge. The journal encourages authors to share their data, when doing so is appropriate and ethically responsible, in compliance with both the [AERA Code of Ethics](https://www.aera.net/about-aera/aera-rules-policies/professional-ethics) and the [APA Code of Ethics](https://www.apa.org/ethics/code). ### Corrections and Retractions Works may be corrected, retracted, or withdrawn from TERM’s website in situations deemed necessary by the editorial staff and editorial board, in accordance with the [COPE Guidance on Post-Publication Review](https://cope.onl/corrections-3). ### Human Subjects Research All research involving human participants must have been approved by the authors' institutional review board or equivalent ethics committee(s), and that board must be named by the authors in the manuscript. ### Plagiarism TERM does not accept articles containing material plagiarized from other publications or authors. For more details, see TERM’s policy on [Originality and Prior Publication](https://uncp.pop.meru.host/collections/pbgaBz7fbpESRPqUpQ05CVxBr0awb8/page/about#originality-and-prior-publication). ### AI Usage Policy Teaching Educational Research Methods (TERM) recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly changing and expanding field of study and engagement in research, teaching, and academic writing. To support authors’ manuscript preparation, TERM’s policy on AI submissions is detailed below and adheres to both [COPE](https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools)’s and [APA](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/policy-generative-ai)’s positions on AI. Note that TERM Editors will regularly review this policy to reflect emerging technologies, ethical standards, and pedagogical practices in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods education research. *If authors have concerns or questions about how a particular manuscript might fit within these guidelines, please contact the journal Editors.* #### COPE The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT or Large Language Models in research publications is expanding rapidly. COPE joins organizations, such as [WAME](https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106) and the [JAMA Network](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801170) among others, to state that AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper. AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements. Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics. #### APA APA’s current policies on generative AI are: - When a generative AI model is used in the drafting of a manuscript for an APA publication, the use of AI must be disclosed in the methods section and cited. - AI cannot be named as an author on an APA scholarly publication. ##### Authors APA policy states that authors are responsible for the accuracy of any information in their article. This means that authors must verify any information and citations provided to them by an AI tool. Authors may use, but must disclose, AI tools for specific purposes such as editing. For guidance about when and where to disclose the use of a Generative AI tool, please see the disclosure guidance section below. Additionally, please note that when information is entered into generative AI, the organization which runs the generative AI will likely have access to this data. Authors should be aware of this possibility and how it may impact the privacy of participants in their studies, as well as how it may impact their own privacy and intellectual property. For this reason, journal editors and reviewers may not enter materials from submitted manuscripts into generative AI as it would constitute a violation of the confidentiality of the peer review process. ##### Disclosure Guidance Guiding principles for authors and editors about what output to disclose from generative AI tools: - Authors need to be transparent, providing the necessary information for readers to understand how generative artificial intelligence (AI) was used during the research and manuscript drafting process. Disclose the use in the most relevant place in the manuscript, most likely the Introduction or Method sections. - Authors need to maintain ethical approaches to using generative AI, including not entering confidential material into open generative AI tools, for example, research data or client notes that may make a participant/client identifiable. - Authors need to take responsibility for the information provided by generative AI tools, including verifying the information received via generative AI searches by reading original sources used in AI output. - Authors need to provide attribution to the generative AI tool in cases where the tool was used to generate ideas, content, analysis, code, or research elements. If you would provide attribution to a human contributor, you should most likely provide attribution to a generative AI tool for a similar activity.