Authorship is reserved for people who made a substantial intellectual contribution. Routine or administrative help does not qualify. To be listed, a person must meet all four conditions below.

The corresponding author confirms that every co-author meets these criteria and that nobody has been added inappropriately. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission are discouraged and need a written justification plus the written consent of everyone affected. After acceptance, changes require editorial approval; after publication, they are handled through a formal correction notice.

Authors are asked to state what each person did, using the CRediT taxonomy — conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing (original draft), writing (review and editing), visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. The statement is published with the article. At least one author acts as guarantor for the integrity of the work as a whole.

People who helped — through supervision, funding, data collection, technical or writing assistance, or discussion that shaped the manuscript — but do not meet the authorship criteria should be named, with their affiliation, in an Acknowledgments section. Authors must tell them and obtain their consent first, sharing the article so the description of their role is accurate. Groups may be listed collectively with a short note on what they did. Because an acknowledgment can read as endorsement, written permission is required.

List the institutions where the research was carried out, approved, or supported. For non-research articles, give your current institution. If you move before publication, keep the institution where the work was done as the main affiliation and mention the new one in the acknowledgments. Changing institution is never on its own a reason to remove an author who meets the criteria.

Research with human participants must follow the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and be approved by an institutional ethics committee where one is available. State in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained and name the approving body and, if applicable, the approval number.

Names, initials, student or staff numbers, and any other identifying detail must not appear unless they are essential to the science and the person has given written consent to publication. The same applies to photographs, video, and audio: obtain written consent from the individual, from a parent or guardian for a minor, or from next of kin where the person has died. Consent must cover publication online under CC BY-SA 4.0. Obscure faces and other identifying features unless consent explicitly covers showing them. Editors may ask to see the signed forms, which are treated as confidential; authors keep the originals. Where anonymity is doubtful, obtain consent.

Images must represent the original data faithfully. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or colour are acceptable only if minor and applied evenly across the whole image; anything that changes meaning is not. Describe how images were captured and name the software used for any edit. Composite figures must be marked as composites. Original, unedited files must be available on request. Material taken from another source — text, figures, tables, data, screenshots, recordings — needs written permission from the rights holder and a citation, even where an open licence applies; short extracts quoted for criticism or review are the usual exception.

A competing interest is anything outside the research that could reasonably be seen as affecting its objectivity or its evaluation. Declare it whether or not it actually influenced the work. A declared interest rarely prevents review or publication; an undisclosed one may lead to rejection, re-evaluation, a correction notice, or retraction. If you are unsure, declare it or ask the editorial office.

Name every source of funding and financial support, and say what part the funder played — in design, data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript. If the funder played no part, say so. Funding information must match what the funding body requires.

AI tools may be used to improve readability and language, under human oversight and with the output checked. They may not do the authoring: generating insight, drawing conclusions, or producing recommendations. AI cannot be an author. Any use must be declared in a short statement published with the article, naming the tool and what it was used for. Authors remain fully responsible for originality and accuracy. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts to AI services, since that would breach confidentiality. Full AI policy →

Describe the rationale, protocol, methodology, and analysis fully enough that another researcher could verify or repeat the study. Development research must report validity, practicality, and effectiveness. Quasi-experimental studies must report effect sizes and homogeneity analyses. Bibliometric studies must disclose the database, search strategy, and timeframe.

The journal acts on every allegation of misconduct under COPE guidance, whatever stage the work has reached. Sanctions range from rejection to retraction and, in serious cases, notification of the author's institution.

Cite literature that is relevant, current, and reliable, preferably peer-reviewed, to support the claims you make. Avoid excessive self-citation. In reviews and opinion pieces especially, references should reflect the field in a balanced way rather than favouring one group, institution, or journal. If you are unsure whether a citation is appropriate, ask the editorial office before submitting.

Every manuscript is reviewed double-blind: authors and reviewers are not told each other's identity. The editorial team screens first for scope, compliance with the author guidelines, and similarity; manuscripts that pass go to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The Editorial Board decides on the basis of the reviewers' recommendations, methodological soundness, originality, and contribution to education research and practice. Reviewers declare competing interests and decline where one exists. The review process in detail →

Submitted manuscripts are confidential. They are seen only by the people handling them: editors, the corresponding author, and assigned or prospective reviewers. Where misconduct is suspected, a manuscript may be disclosed to those investigating it, such as an ethics committee or the author's institution, following the relevant COPE flowchart.

A manuscript is returned without review when any of the following applies.

Changes to a published article are made only after consideration by the editors, in line with COPE guidance, and are always recorded in a permanent public notice linked to and from the original article.

Every notice the journal has issued is listed on the corrections and retractions page and stays permanently accessible.