Research Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning (RSELTL) is committed to responsible research, editorial independence, transparent peer review, and the integrity of the published scholarly record.

This policy applies to authors, editors, peer reviewers, the journal, and its publisher, Pierre Online Publications LTD. It sets out the ethical requirements and procedures followed by RSELTL during submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication.

1. Ownership and responsibility

RSELTL and Pierre Online Publications LTD own and maintain this publication-ethics policy. The policy describes the journal's own requirements and procedures.

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for applying the journal's editorial and ethical procedures. The publisher provides the administrative and technical support required for publication.

RSELTL reviews this policy periodically and may revise it when changes in scholarly publishing, research-integrity practice, applicable law, technology, or the journal's experience make revision appropriate.

2. External publication-ethics guidance

RSELTL has developed this policy with reference to recognised publication-ethics guidance, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

COPE is an external source of guidance and is not the owner of RSELTL's policies. Where RSELTL refers to external guidance, the journal identifies the source and provides access to the relevant guidance.

External reference: COPE Core Practices

3. Editorial independence

Editorial decisions are made by RSELTL's editorial team on scholarly and ethical grounds. Relevant considerations may include the manuscript's suitability for the journal, originality, methodological quality, clarity, evidence, and scholarly contribution.

Editorial decisions are not determined by advertising, sponsorship, commercial relationships, publication fees, personal relationships, or other non-scholarly interests.

The publisher does not determine the scholarly outcome of individual manuscripts.

4. Editorial conflicts of interest

Editors must disclose circumstances that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

An editor must not manage or decide a manuscript where the editor is an author, has a close personal or professional relationship with an author, has a significant research collaboration with an author, has a relevant financial interest, or has another relationship that could reasonably compromise independent judgement.

Where necessary, the manuscript will be assigned to another suitably qualified editor.

5. Peer review

RSELTL uses double-anonymous peer review for research articles unless a different review model is stated for a particular article type.

The editorial team first assesses submissions for suitability, scope, basic scholarly quality, and compliance with submission requirements. Manuscripts selected for external review are normally assessed by independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Reviewers are expected to:

• assess manuscripts objectively and constructively;
• maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts;
• identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged;
• draw serious ethical concerns to the editor's attention;
• disclose potential conflicts of interest;
• avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; and
• provide comments that are relevant to the scholarly content of the manuscript.

A reviewer should decline an invitation where they lack the necessary expertise or cannot complete the review appropriately within the requested timeframe.

RSELTL may replace a reviewer where a conflict of interest, confidentiality concern, inappropriate conduct, or another ethical concern is identified.

6. Responsibilities of authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their submissions.

Authors must ensure that:

• the work is original;
• research procedures and findings are reported accurately;
• sources are appropriately acknowledged;
• the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
• all individuals who qualify for authorship are appropriately identified;
• necessary permissions have been obtained for copyrighted material;
• relevant conflicts of interest are disclosed;
• financial support is acknowledged where applicable;
• applicable research-ethics requirements have been met; and
• the use of artificial-intelligence tools is disclosed where required by this policy or the journal's submission procedures.

Authors must respond honestly to reasonable editorial requests concerning the research, manuscript, data, authorship, ethical approval, or other matters relevant to publication integrity.

7. Authorship and contributorship

Authorship should reflect substantial intellectual or scholarly contributions to the work.

All listed authors should:

1. have made a substantial contribution to the research or manuscript;
2. have participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript;
3. have approved the final version; and
4. accept responsibility for the integrity of their contribution.

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged where appropriate.

Honorary, guest, and gift authorship are not acceptable. Individuals who made qualifying contributions should not be excluded from authorship without an appropriate explanation.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be submitted to the editorial office with an explanation. The journal may require written confirmation from all affected authors before considering the change.

Where an authorship dispute cannot be resolved by the authors, RSELTL may refer the matter to the relevant institution or responsible organisation.

8. Research involving human participants

Research involving human participants must comply with the ethical requirements applicable to the researcher's institution and jurisdiction.

Where formal ethical approval has been obtained, authors should provide the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board and the approval or reference number where available. Relevant information concerning informed consent should also be provided.

Where formal ethical approval was not required, authors should state this and provide an appropriate explanation.

Authors must take appropriate measures to protect participants' privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and rights.

9. Informed consent and consent for publication

Where applicable, authors must obtain informed consent before collecting information from human participants.

Where identifiable personal information, photographs, recordings, quotations, or other potentially identifying material is included in a publication, appropriate consent for publication should be obtained in accordance with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

Authors should not disclose unnecessary personally identifiable information.

The editorial team may request evidence of ethical approval or consent where a reasonable ethical concern arises.

10. Research and publication misconduct

RSELTL takes concerns about research and publication misconduct seriously.

Potential misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• fabrication of data;
• falsification of data or results;
• plagiarism or substantial unattributed copying;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• inappropriate manipulation of images, data, or results;
• inappropriate authorship or contributorship;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• unethical research involving human participants;
• misuse of confidential information;
• fabricated or manipulated peer review;
• inappropriate citation practices;
• misleading information supplied to the journal; and
• deliberate manipulation of the publication process.

When a concern is raised, RSELTL may request explanations, documentation, or other relevant information. Where appropriate, the journal may consult experts or contact an author's institution, research organisation, ethics committee, funder, or another responsible body.

Editorial action will depend on the nature and seriousness of the concern and the available evidence. Possible actions include rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.

11. Publication-process manipulation

RSELTL does not permit deliberate attempts to improperly influence the submission, peer-review, or publication process.

Examples may include fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent peer review, manipulation of reviewer recommendations, inappropriate manipulation of authorship, organised citation manipulation, fabricated information supplied during submission, or other attempts to circumvent normal editorial procedures.

Where credible concerns arise, RSELTL may investigate the matter and take appropriate editorial action. The journal may also refer the matter to an appropriate institution or organisation.

12. Plagiarism, similarity, and duplicate publication

RSELTL expects manuscripts to make an original scholarly contribution and to acknowledge previous work appropriately.

The journal may use similarity-detection software as part of editorial screening.

A similarity report does not, by itself, establish plagiarism. Editors consider the location, nature, extent, and context of identified similarities.

Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously.

Where substantial unattributed copying, duplicate publication, or inappropriate redundant publication is identified, RSELTL may take appropriate editorial action.

13. Citation practices

References should be selected because they are relevant to the scholarly argument or evidence presented.

Authors should avoid unnecessary or excessive self-citation, inappropriate citation of particular authors or journals, and arrangements intended to increase citation counts.

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to cite their own work, the work of colleagues, or particular journals merely to increase citation counts or visibility.

Recommendations for additional references during peer review should have a genuine scholarly basis.

14. Conflicts of interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

A conflict may arise from financial, professional, institutional, personal, collaborative, competitive, or other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartial judgement.

A disclosed conflict does not automatically prevent publication or participation in peer review. Where a conflict could compromise impartiality, the person concerned should withdraw from the relevant editorial or review activity.

15. Funding and financial support

Authors should disclose financial support received for the research or preparation of the manuscript where applicable.

Funding statements should identify the supporting organisation and, where appropriate, the relevant grant, project, or award reference.

Where no specific financial support was received, authors should provide a statement where required by the journal's submission process.

16. Artificial intelligence and generative AI

RSELTL recognises that authors may use artificial-intelligence and generative-AI tools during research and manuscript preparation.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, or ethical conduct of scholarly work.

Human authors remain responsible for the entire manuscript, including material produced or assisted by AI.

Where generative AI makes a substantive contribution to manuscript preparation, authors should disclose its use in accordance with the journal's AI disclosure requirements.

Authors must verify AI-assisted content and remain responsible for the accuracy of claims, references, quotations, analyses, and other material.

AI must not be used to fabricate data, results, references, quotations, sources, or other misleading scholarly content.

17. AI and peer review

Submitted manuscripts and peer-review materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, reviewer reports, author information, or other confidential peer-review material to generative-AI systems where this could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or the integrity of the review process.

A peer reviewer remains personally responsible for the content and judgement expressed in the review.

18. AI and editorial work

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and editorial correspondence.

Editors should not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, author information, or other restricted editorial material to external AI systems where this could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or editorial integrity.

19. Data availability and research materials

Authors should provide sufficient methodological information for readers and editors to understand and assess the research.

Where ethically, legally, and contractually permissible, authors are encouraged to make relevant data, instruments, materials, or other research resources available through an appropriate repository.

Where research data cannot be made publicly available because of privacy, confidentiality, ethical, contractual, or legal restrictions, authors should provide an appropriate explanation.

Authors may be asked to provide supporting information to the editorial team when this is necessary to assess a research-integrity concern.

20. Copyright and intellectual property

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submissions do not knowingly infringe the intellectual-property rights of others.

Permission must be obtained where copyrighted material requires permission for reproduction.

Authors must appropriately acknowledge material obtained from other sources.

RSELTL's copyright, licensing, and open-access arrangements are described separately in the journal's Copyright and licensing and Open-access policy pages.

21. Complaints and appeals

RSELTL provides authors and other relevant parties with an opportunity to raise concerns about editorial procedures or decisions.

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the journal's editorial office and should provide sufficient information for the matter to be reviewed.

Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief or another designated editor will review the complaint. An editor must not review a complaint where they have a direct conflict of interest.

Appeals against editorial decisions should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant evidence where available. An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

Complaints concerning the publisher or matters that cannot reasonably be resolved by the editorial team may be referred to the publisher.

22. Corrections and amendments

RSELTL is committed to maintaining an accurate published record.

Where a published article contains an error that does not substantially affect its principal findings or conclusions, the journal may publish a correction or amendment.

A correction should identify the affected article, describe the relevant error, and state the correction made to the published record.

23. Expressions of concern

Where a credible concern exists about the reliability, ethics, or integrity of a published article but the available evidence is insufficient for a final determination, RSELTL may publish an Expression of Concern.

An Expression of Concern alerts readers to a matter under review. It does not itself establish that misconduct has occurred.

The journal may update or replace the notice when the matter has been resolved and the scholarly record has been appropriately corrected.

24. Retractions

RSELTL may retract a published article where there is sufficient evidence that the reliability or integrity of the article has been seriously compromised.

Reasons may include unreliable findings, fabrication or falsification, substantial plagiarism, inappropriate duplicate publication, serious ethical violations, relevant undisclosed conflicts, or serious manipulation of the publication process.

A retraction notice should explain the reason for the retraction and remain permanently linked to the original publication.

25. Post-publication concerns

Readers, authors, reviewers, and researchers may raise concerns about published material.

A concern should provide sufficient information and, where possible, supporting evidence.

Depending on the circumstances, RSELTL may request clarification, review the article and supporting material, consult experts, request additional documentation, contact an appropriate institution or organisation, or publish a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

26. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to RSELTL are treated as confidential during editorial assessment and peer review.

Editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the editorial process must not disclose confidential information about a manuscript to unauthorised individuals.

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Disclosure may occur where necessary to investigate a serious ethical or legal concern or where required by applicable law.

27. Editorial records and transparency

RSELTL maintains appropriate records relating to submissions, peer review, editorial decisions, and publication-ethics matters.

Access to confidential editorial records is restricted to individuals with a legitimate editorial, administrative, or investigative reason to access them.

The journal aims to provide accurate and accessible information about its aims and scope, editorial team, publisher, peer-review process, publication frequency, authorship requirements, publication ethics, copyright and licensing, open-access arrangements, fees and charges where applicable, and complaints and appeals procedures.

28. Policy review

RSELTL and Pierre Online Publications LTD review this publication-ethics policy periodically.

The policy may be revised in response to developments in scholarly publishing, research-integrity practice, applicable legislation, emerging publication risks, artificial-intelligence developments, or experience gained from handling ethical cases.

The current version will be maintained on the RSELTL website.

29. Publisher and journal responsibility

Research Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning (RSELTL) is published by Pierre Online Publications LTD.

The RSELTL editorial team is responsible for editorial decisions, peer-review procedures, and the ethical and scholarly standards applied to published content.

Pierre Online Publications LTD provides the publishing infrastructure and administrative support required for the journal.

RSELTL and its publisher are responsible for ensuring that the policies published on the journal website accurately describe the journal's actual practices.