1. Ethical Considerations

The topic of research ethics is critical, and it must be strictly observed to protect the researcher, co-researchers, participants, respondents, and all objects and subject elements involved in the study. Education research, like other disciplines of study, must adhere to ethical guidelines affecting humans, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, and anonymity, among other things. Where applicable, the study should include information about the name of the ethical committee, the permission number, and the participants’ or their legal guardians’ consent to participate in the study.

2. Formatting of Manuscripts

The integrity of our review process is paramount. As a result, authors should work together to delete all identifying information from their submissions in order to ensure a blind relationship between the author(s) and the reviewer(s). Before beginning the evaluation process, these steps will be taken into full consideration.

• The Author(s) should create two documents. The main manuscript should only have the title, abstract, and whole article. The title, author(s) information, and email addresses of all authors must be included in the second document, which must be labeled and uploaded as a “supplementary file”.

Manuscripts must be created in Microsoft Word, using single-spaced (1.0 line spacing), justified size-10, and Times New Roman font. Authors should use italics rather than underlining, and figures, tables, and other images should be positioned in the proper area within the text based on the author’s interests. Manuscripts should be between 4000 and 7000 words long, including references, an abstract of no more than 250 words, and any appendices. Please be aware that the stipulated word restriction does not apply to contributions classified as Short Communications, Commentaries, or Book Reviews.

Each heading must be numbered, such as 1., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, among others. In the case of numerous writers, the paper must designate one as the corresponding author. Before submitting, please review our published articles to ensure that your post is properly formatted. Articles that are not formatted according to our specifications will be rejected.

• Types of Acceptable Articles

During the submission process, all authors must clearly state the type of article they are submitting (e.g., research article, review article, opinion piece, etc.). This information must also be provided in the anonymous manuscript file to ensure correct categorization and ease the peer-reviewing process. Submissions that do not meet these requirements may be returned for editing before being sent for review.

• Research articles are data-driven studies that advance understanding in a certain topic. They often follow a defined format, which includes an introduction, methods, findings, and discussion. These papers contain rigorous study findings and seek to answer key questions or gaps in the field.
• Review articles summarize existing literature on a topic, identify gaps, and suggest future study options. These papers are crucial in synthesizing information and directing academics through the breadth and depth of a topic field. Different types of review articles include systematic reviews, which use rigorous methodologies to evaluate and synthesize evidence from multiple studies; meta-analyses, which combine quantitative data from multiple sources to draw statistical conclusions; and narrative reviews, which provide descriptive overviews without strict methodological requirements. Furthermore, scoping reviews summarize the available information on a broad issue, whereas critical reviews analyze and challenge existing conclusions or beliefs. This kind is categorized as Review Articles.
• Opinion Pieces are succinct articles that provide the author’s perspective on current debates, difficulties, or new trends in the subject. These papers are intended to spark thought, promote conversation, and provide unique viewpoints that may influence future study or practice.
• Theoretical/Conceptual Articles aim to establish new frameworks, models, or ideas. They frequently synthesize current knowledge to suggest novel ideas or methodologies. These papers seek to increase theoretical understanding and conceptual thinking in the field.
• Case Reports are thorough summaries of specific instances or incidents in clinical, educational, or organizational settings. These reports highlight unusual ideas, rare phenomena, or new techniques, and are especially beneficial for deriving practical conclusions or encouraging further research.
• Short Communications refers to succinct reports of preliminary findings, major discoveries, or novel procedures. These articles are perfect for providing timely updates or smaller-scale investigations that do not necessitate the depth of a full-length research paper.
• Commentaries are analytical debates or critiques of published works, current concerns, or trends in the subject. These items provide context, interpretation, or different perspectives, frequently improving the reader’s comprehension of an issue or prompting further discussion.
• Book Reviews provide a critical evaluation of recent publications in the topic. They evaluate the book’s contributions, strengths, and limitations, comparing it to current research or practice. Book evaluations provide readers with useful information about the book’s relevance and utility to their work.

3. Citation, Referencing and ORCID iD Requirement

Every source used must be acknowledged. Authors must ensure that all in-text citations are properly completed and that the reference section has no omissions. All citations in the manuscript must be referenced, and all references must be mentioned. Michad-Pechez used the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 7th edition publication guidelines, which should be rigorously followed.

Authors are required to have an ORCID ID. For each publication published, all authors must submit an ORCID iD. The Open Researcher and Contributor identification (ORCID) is a free, 16-digit linkable identification (iD) that identifies researchers and distinguishes identical authors.

4. Obligations of the Corresponding Author and Co-Authors:

Designated Corresponding Author: The corresponding author is accountable for managing the paper submission and publishing process. All co-authors must be informed of the submission and consent to the manuscript’s content. The corresponding author serves as the main liaison with the journal and is accountable for responding to inquiries throughout the review and publication phases.

Co-Authors: All co-authors must have made significant contributions to the study and writing. They share collaborative responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work. Authors must confirm that all co-authors have examined and sanctioned the final manuscript.

5. Author Contributions Declared on Submissions:

Authors must delineate their specific contributions utilizing the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system, which offers a standardized method for recognizing each author’s participation in the research. These duties may encompass, but are not restricted to, conceptualization, data curation, original draft authoring, and funding procurement. The contributions must be explicitly delineated during the submission procedure.

6. Recognizing Non-Authors:

Ghost authorship, when those who have significantly contributed are omitted from authorship, is severely discouraged. All contributors must be recognized as co-authors, and their distinct roles should be explicitly articulated.

Guest authoring, which entails including individuals as writers who have not made substantial contributions, is likewise discouraged. Only individuals who have made substantial contributions to the study and text should be designated as authors.

Gift authorship, wherein individuals are designated as authors solely as a courtesy or formality, is prohibited. Authorship must be grounded on significant intellectual and practical contributions.

7. Addressing Potential Authorship Disputes:

In instances of authorship conflicts, the journal advocates for authors to handle the matter internally. Authors are advised to deliberate and achieve an agreement among themselves. Should an agreement remain unattainable, the journal may contemplate postponing the publication until the disagreement is settled or a comprehensive clarification from all parties is submitted.

8. Nominating or Excluding Reviewers:

Authors may propose preferred or excluded reviewers throughout the submission procedure. Nonetheless, the journal maintains the ultimate authority in the selection of reviewers. The editorial team may entertain author recommendations, although it is not compelled to adhere to them. Nominations or exclusions must be grounded in legitimate reasons pertaining to potential conflicts of interest or expertise.

9. Authors’ ethical obligations

Authorship pertains to individuals or collectives that conceive an idea or produce the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative endeavor.

Authors submitting manuscripts to Advanced Education are required to maintain the highest ethical standards in academic publishing. The subsequent ethical responsibilities must be upheld:

10. Originality: The authors affirm that the work is not simultaneously under review by another journal. The text must be wholly original and must not have been published, either partially or totally, in any other language.

Self-citation, though permitted, should be employed judiciously, notably where it is crucial to mention the author’s prior work, particularly in the context of relevant research.

11. Salami Publication: Authors are advised against “salami publication,” the practice of segmenting a singular research endeavor into numerous portions for the purpose of publication.

12. Research Misconduct: The journal retains the authority to reject the manuscript at any stage of consideration if any type of research misconduct is detected, including data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or duplicate publication. In compliance with COPE rules, the AE may publish a retraction, inform the author’s institution, and temporarily suspend future submissions from the authors.