About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Qualitative Research in Education is an online journal four-monthly (February 28th, June 28th and October 28th) published by Hipatia which shows the results of qualitative researches aimed to promote significantly the understanding and improvement of the educational processes. Qualitative Research in Education gathers the outcomes from the educational researches carried out in different fields, disciplines and qualitative methodological approaches. These investigations have as a final purpose to improve the educational processes or contexts. Consequently, the journal will publish disciplinary and multi-disciplinary pieces of work linked to education and more precisely to Pedagogy, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Philosophy, Linguistics, Geography, Mathematics, Physical Education, Music or Political Science.
This scientific journal was created to meet the need for recording the increasing scientific knowledge generated from qualitative researches. Qualitative Research in Education is one of the first scientific journals on this theme. It intends to be an international space for debate and educational reflection on participative implementations on research which involves the reality that is being investigated, the understanding of educational phenomena as well as the evidence that can encourage not only equity and improvement of outcomes in education but also a social change.
Peer Review Process
Consideration: The works received are reviewed by the editorial team, which prepares the corresponding report for the acceptance or rejection of the article, based on the quality criteria. It is checked both if the article meets the formal criteria and the specific scope of the journal. Once the adequacy of the works has been verified, the editors assign the review of the article to two external evaluators through the "double blind peer review" system. In case of discrepancy, the editors will assign the review to a third evaluator.
Once the article has been reviewed, each external reviewer submit an evaluation report in which he/she recommends accepting the article, carrying out changes and improvements or rejecting the manuscript. At this time, the decision is sent to the author/s. If the evaluators have asked the author/s to make minor or major changes, he/she must submit a new version of the work including all the recommendations. The editorial team, according to the initial assessments made in the aforementioned reports, will evaluate this work again.
The evaluators play a central role in guaranteeing the quality and integrity of the journal. The peer review process depends largely on the trust and voluntary participation of the academic community and requires that all those involved act in a responsible and ethical manner. QRE invites its reviewers and potential reviewers to follow the guidelines published in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Proofreading. The authors themselves will do the revision of the proofreading within the period indicated by the Editorial Board. In the case where the author does not respond within the stipulated period, the Editorial Team will carry out the revision.
Responsibility: Qualitative Research in Education journal will not be responsible for the ideas and opinions expressed in the published works. The full responsibility will be of the author/s.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides free immediate access to its content under the principle of which to make the research freely available to the public supports a greater interchange of global knowledge.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons NonCommercial and NonDerivative License
Hipatia Press Scientific Journals pursue the ethical standards present in the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the International Standards for editors and authors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics
QRE is committed to meeting high standards of ethical conduct at all stages of the publication process. In our ethical standards and procedures, we set out general expectations for authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and society partners. QRE guarantees at all times the confidentiality of the evaluation process: the anonymity of the reviewers and the authors, the content evaluated, the rationale report issued by the reviewers and any other communication issued by the editorial and advisory boards.
Also the confidentiality will be maintained before any clarifications or complaints that an author wishes to send to the committees of the journal or to the evaluators of the article.
QRE declares its commitment for the respect and integrity of the works already published. For this reason, plagiarism is strictly prohibited in QRE and texts that are identified as plagiarism or its content are fraudulent will be removed from the journal if they have already been published or will not be published. Hipatia Press and QRE editors will act, in these cases, as quickly as possible. By accepting the terms and agreements expressed by QRE, authors must ensure that the article or review and the materials associated with them are original or do not infringe copyright. The authors also have to justify that, in case of a shared authorship, there was a full consensus of all the authors affected and that the article or book review has not been previously presented or published in other journals.
In the event that QRE editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct, these allegations would be treated accordingly. QRE editors will be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever needed.
QRE endorses the Elsevier’s policy for retracting or correcting articles when needed. Therefore, we provide the following guidelines which will be applied in those cases that appear to be violating the ethical standard of publication:
Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), may be withdrawn from QRE.
In case of infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list with a link to the original article. The original article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note and carries a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”
In cases where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk, the authors of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. In these circumstances the procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published article and a history of the document.
• The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
• Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
• Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
• Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere.
• Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
• The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
• Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
• The authorship of research publications:
- should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
- should follow criteria for authorship and acknowledgement to be agreed at the start of the project. Ideally, authorship criteria within a particular field should be agreed, published and consistently applied by research institutions, professional and academic societies, and funders.
- should include only those individuals who meet authorship criteria (i.e. made a substantial contribution to the work) and should not omit deserving authors such as ghost authors.
- Should prevent including individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria such as: guest authors who are listed because of their seniority, reputation or supposed influence; gift authors who are listed as a personal favour or in return for payment.
- Requires that all authors agree to be listed and approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to reviewers’ comments).
- should not be confused with acknowledgements that could misleadingly imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.
For a detailed account of ethics international standards for authors developed by COPE during the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore in 2010, please access the following document: https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf
• Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
• Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
• Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
• Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
• Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
• Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
• Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
• Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
For a detailed account of the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers developed by COPE, please access the following document: http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf
• Editors are accountable and take responsibility for everything they publish.
• Editors will make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and will ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
• Editors will adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting.
• Editors will guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
• Editors will pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
• Editors will critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
• Peer reviewers and authors are told what of is expected of them.
• Editors have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.
For a detailed account of the publication ethics and malpractice statement for editors developed by COPE, please access the following document: https://publicationethics.org/files/editable-bean/COPE_Core_Practices_0.pdf