Commitment to Ethical Publishing

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning collaborates with the Digital Society Lab (University of Belgrade), PVKTII (Indonesian Vocational and Technical Education Association for Information Technology), and Sagamedia Teknologi Nusantara as its publisher. The journal follows the Core Practices outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure the integrity, credibility, and transparency of the scholarly publishing process.

In addition, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning complies with relevant Indonesian laws. The Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta (Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright) protects authors' intellectual property and ensures the proper attribution of scientific work. This law governs authors' rights and protects against plagiarism, ensuring that authors receive due credit for their work and that all copyrighted materials are used appropriately.

1. Allegations of Misconduct

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning has a clear and strict procedure for handling allegations of ethical misconduct, regardless of how these allegations are brought to the journal's attention. All allegations are taken seriously, and the journal is committed to investigating and responding promptly and appropriately. This includes allegations brought forward by whistleblowers.

1.1. Types of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct may include, but are not limited to:

Plagiarism: Copying or using someone else's work, ideas, or intellectual property without proper attribution
Fabrication: Creating false or fictitious data or results
Falsification: Manipulating or altering research data or results to misrepresent the findings
Authorship Misconduct: Inappropriate authorship attribution or guest/gift authorship
Conflict of Interest: Failure to disclose relevant financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence the research findings
Research Misconduct: Violation of ethical standards or research integrity

1.2. Reporting and Whistleblower Protection

Allegations of misconduct may be reported by anyone, including authors, reviewers, readers, or whistleblowers who believe that research misconduct or unethical practices have occurred during the publication process. The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning understands the importance of protecting whistleblowers who report allegations of misconduct in good faith. The identity of whistleblowers will be kept confidential, and they will be protected throughout the investigation process to ensure protection for the complainant while creating a safe and retaliation-free reporting environment.

1.3. Investigation Process

Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning will initiate a thorough and objective investigation. This investigation may encompass consulting relevant experts, reviewing original data, and seeking clarification from all parties involved to ensure accuracy and fairness.

1.4. Allegations Before and After Publication

If an allegation of misconduct arises, whether before or after the publication of an article in the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning, the editorial board will take appropriate and decisive action. Before publication, the board may delay the article's release pending the outcome of the investigation. After publication, the journal will initiate a post-publication review to verify the validity of the allegation and take necessary actions if misconduct is confirmed.

1.5. Corrective Actions

If misconduct is confirmed, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning may take several corrective actions, which could include, but are not limited to:

Retracting the article
Issuing a correction or erratum
Imposing sanctions on the responsible authors or contributors in serious cases
Notifying relevant institutions or authorities

1.6. Communication and Transparency

Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning will inform the complainant, the individuals involved, and any affected parties about the outcome of the investigation. Furthermore, the journal is committed to ensuring transparency and accountability by publicly sharing the investigation process and its findings.

2. Authorship and Contributorship

As an open-access journal practicing the CC-BY 4.0 International License, authors retain the copyright of their articles. This license permits anyone to copy, modify, distribute, and perform the work, even commercially, so long as proper attribution is given to the original author(s). This allows for broad distribution and reuse while ensuring that the authors receive appropriate credit for their work.

2.1. Criteria for Authorship and Contribution Statement

To be recognized as an author, individuals must meet the following essential criteria (ICMJE, 2018):

Significant involvement in the development of the work, whether through shaping the overall concept, designing the study, or contributing to the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data.
Active participation in drafting the manuscript or performing a thorough and critical review of the work, focusing on its intellectual content.
Approval of the final manuscript prior to its submission for publication, ensuring that all content is accurate and complete.
Commitment to accountability for the integrity of the work, with a responsibility to address any concerns regarding the accuracy or reliability of the research findings.

Authors must specify their contributions using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to ensure accurate representation of their involvement in the research (Allen, O’Connell, & Kiermer, 2019). Further details on these roles and reporting can be found in the Journal’s Template. Additionally, all authors must approve the final version of the article and take responsibility for its content. Authors should also be prepared to explain and defend the research findings in public forums, if necessary.

This journal usually only accepts manuscripts with up to six authors, unless a good reason is provided for adding more than six authors.

2.2. Dispute Resolution

In the event of a disagreement or dispute regarding authorship, the editorial board of the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learningwill follow a structured process to investigate and resolve the matter. All parties involved will be asked to provide evidence of their contributions to the research. The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning may also seek guidance from COPE or other relevant organizations to ensure a fair and unbiased resolution. The journal will refrain from involving itself in personal disputes between authors.

2.3. Changes in Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after manuscript submission will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Such requests must be supported by a written explanation from all involved authors, providing detailed reasons for the change. The editorial board of the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning will carefully evaluate the request and may consult with journal advisors and review COPE guidelines as deemed necessary.

2.4. Gift and Ghost Authorship

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning does not permit gift authorship (attribution of authorship without significant contribution) or ghost authorship (failure to acknowledge individuals who have made a substantial contribution). Any individual who has made a minor contribution to the research or writing should be appropriately recognized in the acknowledgments section but not listed as an author. The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning actively works to prevent and address cases of gift and ghost authorship.

https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/ghost-guest-or-gift-authorship-submitted-manuscript

2.5. Conflict of Interest Statement

Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the interpretation of their research in their manuscript submission to Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning. Conflicts of interest may include financial, professional, or personal relationships that may affect the objectivity and credibility of scholarly work. The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning encourages full transparency in these disclosures.

2.6. Compliance with Ethical Guidelines

Authors must adhere to the ethical guidelines of the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning and the prevailing ethical standards in the research field. This includes obtaining proper permissions for the use of copyrighted materials, ensuring informed consent from human subjects, and ensuring the ethical treatment of animals in research.

3. Complaints and appeals

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning is dedicated to maintaining a fair and transparent approach in managing complaints and appeals. This policy describes the steps for submitting complaints related to the journal, its editorial team, staff, or publisher, in addition to the procedure for handling appeals. The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning strives to ensure that all complaints are dealt with promptly, impartially, and with the highest regard for preserving the integrity and quality of its academic publications.

3.1. Types of Complaints

Complaints may include, but are not limited to, the following issues:

Allegations of research misconduct or ethical violations in published articles
Claims of bias or unfair treatment by the editorial board or journal staff
Disputes related to the peer-review process
Accusations of copyright infringement or plagiarism
Concerns about conflicts of interest or undisclosed competing interests

3.2. Submission and Assessment of Complaints

Anyone, including authors, reviewers, readers, or other concerned parties, can submit a complaint regarding the operations of the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning through our contact email. The complainant is required to provide contact information, a detailed description of the issue, and any relevant supporting evidence. Upon receiving the complaint, the editorial team of the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the complaint is valid and meets the criteria for further investigation. If the complaint falls outside the scope of this policy, the complainant will be informed and directed to the appropriate authority.

3.3. Investigation Process and Involvement of Relevant Parties

If the complaint is deemed valid, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning will initiate a thorough investigation. This process involves gathering additional information, communicating with relevant parties, and examining pertinent documentation. To maintain objectivity and integrity, if the complaint involves members of the editorial board or publisher, those individuals will be excluded from the investigation process, and those not involved will assume responsibility for further investigation.

3.4. Resolution and Communication of Investigation Results

Once the investigation is complete, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning will communicate the results to the complainant and provide an explanation of the actions taken to address the raised issues. The journal will aim to resolve the complaint efficiently and professionally, ensuring that each step taken is transparent and fair to all parties involved.

3.5. Appeal Process and Final Decision

If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the initial investigation, they have the right to appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by an independent committee that was not involved in the prior investigation. The committee will reassess the case objectively and provide a final decision. The appeal committee's decision will be communicated to the complainant, with a clear explanation of the reasons behind the decision.

4. Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization has financial, personal, professional, or academic relationships that could potentially influence, or appear to influence, their objectivity, integrity, or decision-making in the research, review, editorial, or publishing processes.

4.1. Identification and Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, editors, and others involved in the publication process are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the work they are submitting, reviewing, editing, or publishing. This includes but is not limited to:

Financial Interests: Funding, stock ownership, employment, consultancy, or other financial relationships related to the research
Personal Relationships: Close personal or familial ties with individuals involved in the research or publication process
Academic Relationships: Collaborations or affiliations that may influence objectivity
Competing Affiliations: Relationships with competing organizations that may create conflicting interests
Intellectual Property: Patents, copyrights, or intellectual property rights that could impact the research or publication

4.2. Handling Conflicts of Interest

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning ensures that conflicts of interest are handled with the highest degree of transparency:

For Authors: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the time of manuscript submission. If conflicts arise post-publication, authors are responsible for informing the editorial team, and steps will be taken to address the issue openly.
For Reviewers: Reviewers must avoid accepting review invitations if they have any conflict of interest. Should a conflict arise during the review process, they must notify the editorial team immediately for further action.
For Editors and Staff: Editors and staff members must recuse themselves from reviewing or making decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. The editorial board will make the final decision on how such cases are handled.
For Publishers: Publishers must implement appropriate policies to manage conflicts of interest within their organization, ensuring that editorial decisions are made impartially, free from financial or other competing influences.

4.3. Transparency and Disclosure

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning maintains a commitment to full transparency. All conflicts of interest disclosed by authors, reviewers, editors, or other relevant parties will be made public alongside the relevant articles, reviews, or editorials. To prevent conflicts of interest, we will restrict access to the publication process for editors, reviewers, and other stakeholders if they have co-authored articles submitted to our journal.

5. Data Availability

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning encourages authors to make all data underlying their research findings fully available and accessible to readers. Authors should provide detailed information regarding the data collection process, methodology, and analysis to ensure that the results can be reproduced and verified. In certain cases, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning may request access to the raw data if needed. For quantitative research, authors should deposit datasets in reputable data repositories or provide a link to the data within the article. If data cannot be publicly available due to ethical or legal constraints, authors should clearly explain the reasons for non-disclosure, such as privacy concerns, ethical restrictions, or legal limitations, and provide a mechanism for readers or the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning to request access to the data. For qualitative research, authors should describe the data sources and methods in detail and consider providing excerpts or representative examples of data to support the analysis and findings.

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning encourages authors to adhere to relevant reporting guidelines specific to their study design to enhance the clarity, completeness, and reproducibility of research reporting. Authors conducting clinical trials or studies involving human participants must register their studies in appropriate clinical trial registries before participant enrollment, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and supports the registration of clinical trials according to international standards. Furthermore, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning values the importance of reproducibility and requires that authors provide sufficient details in their manuscripts, including methodology, protocols, and analytical approaches, to allow other researchers to reproduce the study's findings. Authors should also cite datasets and sources used in their research, following standard citation formats, to ensure proper attribution. The journal's editorial board and peer reviewers will assess adherence to this data availability and reproducibility policy during manuscript evaluation, and authors may be asked to provide additional information or clarifications as necessary.

6. Ethical Oversight

6.1. Consent to Publication

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning equires that authors obtain proper consent from all individuals or entities involved in the research, including consent to publish identifiable information, images, or other personally identifiable data. Authors must provide documentation of consent when submitting their manuscripts to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

6.2. Research Involving Vulnerable Populations

Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning is committed to ethical research practices, particularly when involving vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly individuals, or marginalized groups. Authors conducting research on these groups must adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring informed consent and providing a clear justification for their inclusion. This includes explaining how participants' rights and well-being are protected throughout the study.

6.3. Ethical Conduct in Research Using Animals

For studies involving animals, authors are expected to comply with all applicable ethical guidelines and regulations for animal research. It is required that authors state in their manuscripts that the study has received ethical approval from an appropriate animal ethics committee or institutional review board, ensuring that animal welfare is prioritized.

6.4. Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Human Subjects

When research involves human participants, authors must ensure that informed consent is obtained from all participants. The research must also comply with relevant ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) or national regulations. Additionally, the research protocol should be approved by an institutional review board or ethics committee, ensuring that the rights and safety of participants are respected throughout the study.

7. Intellectual Property

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning has clear policies on intellectual property, copyright, and publishing licenses, which are described to authors. The journal ensures that authors are aware of the policies on prepublication and what constitutes plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication.

7.1. Copyright and Publishing Licenses

Authors who submit their work to the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning retain the copyright of their articles while granting the journal the non-exclusive right to publish, reproduce, and distribute the article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This license allows readers to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the work, even for commercial purposes, so long as appropriate credit is given to the original author(s). Any resulting derivative works must be distributed under the same license.

7.2. Publication Costs

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning operates under an open-access model, providing unrestricted access to its content. Readers can freely access, read, and download articles without any associated costs. Submission and peer review for articles are free of charge.

However, upon acceptance, an Article Processing Charges (APC) applies. The APC helps cover essential publishing activities such as DOI registration, editorial processes, production, online hosting, and archiving. This ensures that articles remain freely accessible to the public under an open-access license, enabling the broadest possible dissemination of research.

The APC does not influence the editorial decision-making process. All submissions are evaluated based solely on scientific merit and their contribution to the field, irrespective of the authors' ability to pay. Authors who face financial constraints and are unable to cover the APC may request a waiver via email. Waiver requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with priority given to authors from low-income countries or those facing financial hardship.

Requests for APC waivers or discounts should be made at the time of manuscript submission. Unfortunately, waiver requests submitted during the review process or after acceptance cannot be considered.

Collecting APCs enables the journal to sustain its operations and continue providing valuable publishing services to the academic community. For more information on fees, please refer to APC details.

7.3. Prepublication Considerations

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning considers manuscripts that have not been published elsewhere. Prepublication in any form, including on preprint servers, personal websites, or institutional repositories, may prevent the manuscript from being considered. However, presenting research findings at conferences or posting preprints on preprint servers will not necessarily disqualify the manuscript, provided that these instantiations do not constitute prior formal publication or identical documentation.

Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning considers manuscripts that have not been published elsewhere. Prepublication in any form, including on preprint servers, personal websites, or institutional repositories, may prevent the manuscript from being considered. However, presenting research findings at conferences or posting preprints on preprint servers will not necessarily disqualify the manuscript, provided that these do not constitute prior formal publication or identical documents.

7.4. Plagiarism

Plagiarism, in any form, is strictly prohibited by the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning. Authors must ensure that their submitted work is original and properly cited, giving appropriate credit to the sources. The editorial board uses plagiarism detection software (Turnitin) to identify potential plagiarism. Manuscripts with a similarity score exceeding 20% will be automatically be rejected.

For further details, refer to our complete Plagiarism Policy. Authors must retain raw data and be prepared to provide it upon request by the editorial board.

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning uses the COPE guidelines to investigate suspected plagiarism. The following procedures will be followed for suspected plagiarism:

Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript here
Suspected plagiarism in a published article here

7.5. Redundant/Overlapping Publication

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning does not consider manuscripts that substantially overlap with previously published works. Authors should not submit a manuscript that has been previously published, accepted for publication, or is under review elsewhere. Republishing a previously published work without proper acknowledgment or justification will be considered redundant publication and is not permitted.

8. Journal Management

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning maintains a strict protocols and a robust infrastructure to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the journal. This includes a structured business model, clear policies, streamlined processes, and robust software systems to support editorial independence and smooth publishing workflows.

Business Model: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning follows a sustainable open-access model, ensuring that all research is freely accessible to readers worldwide. The journal operates without charging subscription fees, and the Article Processing Charges (APC) are applied only after acceptance of an article, ensuring transparency in the publishing costs.
Editorial Independence: The editorial process is entirely independent, with decisions made solely based on the scientific merit and scholarly contribution of the manuscripts. There are clear procedures in place to manage conflicts of interest, ensuring that editorial decisions are not influenced by external or financial interests.
Editorial Policies and Processes: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning has well-defined editorial policies and clear guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors, ensuring that the publishing process is fair, transparent, and consistent. These policies cover areas such as manuscript submission, peer review, conflicts of interest, and ethical guidelines, as well as specific processes for manuscript handling and decision-making.
Software and Tools: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning uses a range of software and tools to facilitate the editorial and publishing process. This includes Turnitin for plagiarism detection, Grammarly for proofreading and language enhancement, and Mendeley, EndNote, or Zotero for reference management. The journal's website is also equipped with secure submission systems, SSL encryption for data safety, and an editorial management system that helps streamline workflows.
Training of Editorial and Publishing Staff: The journal is committed to the continuous professional development and training of its editorial board and publishing staff. Regular workshops, seminars, and updates on best practices in academic publishing are delivered to ensure that the editorial team is well-informed about current trends, technologies, and ethical guidelines.
Quality Control: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning's editorial board conducts regular quality checks to ensure that the published content adheres to the journal's standards for scientific rigor, ethical conduct, and relevance. Regular training is also provided for reviewers and editors to ensure consistency and quality in the review process.
Sustainability and Growth: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning is committed to the long-term sustainability of the journal. The APC model ensures that the journal remains self-sufficient while maintaining the highest level of editorial quality and openness. Moreover, the journal continuously works to expand its readership and international visibility, ensuring broad dissemination of research outputs.
Compliance with Industry Standards: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning operates in full compliance with international best practices for academic publishing. This includes alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, adherence to ethical publishing standards, and regular updates to policies and processes to stay current with the evolving publishing landscape.
Support for Authors: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning offers comprehensive support for authors throughout the submission, review, and publication processes. Authors are guided through every step, from manuscript submission to post-publication activities, ensuring a smooth experience and high-quality academic output.

9. Peer-Review Process

To ensure unbiased evaluations, all submissions undergo a double-anonymized peer review process. At least two experts in the relevant field review each manuscript. The journal is committed to ensuring that no conflicts of interest affect the peer review process.

9.1. Initial Assessment and Plagiarism Check

All manuscript submissions undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and a plagiarism check using Turnitin. Manuscripts not immediately rejected due to ethical concerns, plagiarism, or scope mismatch will be assigned to a handling editor to continue the peer review process.

9.2. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

The journal employs a double-anonymized peer review system, where both the authors’ and reviewers' identities are concealed to ensure impartial and unbiased review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the submitted topic. Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge and verified by the editor through sources such as ORCID, Scopus ID, Web of Science Researcher ID, Google Scholar, or CV verification. Typically, reviewers are authors who have previously published in this journal or are recognized experts in the field. For more details, refer to our Peer Review Process and Peer Review Policy.

9.3. Review Timeline and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers have one week to respond to the invitation (accept or decline). Once the assignment is accepted, the reviewer has an additional 2-3 weeks to complete the review. Therefore, the total review process should take no more than four weeks. Reviewers must follow the journal’s Review Guidelines and complete the official review form. They should provide a clear recommendation—accept, reject, or request revisions—and may attach additional comments or reports to support their evaluation. If a reviewer cannot meet this timeline, they must promptly inform the editorial team to arrange a replacement.

Reviewer Duties:

Confidentiality and Ethics: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained during the review process and not use it for personal gain
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must ensure that there are no competing interests that could affect the objectivity of their review
Objective and Fair Review: Reviewers must provide honest, objective, and constructive feedback on manuscripts
Reporting Ethical Misconduct: Reviewers must report any suspicion of ethical violations, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, to the handling editor

9.4. Handling Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers, authors, and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the impartiality of the review process. Reviewers must notify the handling editor immediately if a conflict of interest arises and decline the review if necessary. Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers if a potential conflict of interest exists, but the editor makes the final decision.

9.5. Post-Review Process and Manuscript Acceptance

Manuscript Acceptance: Manuscripts are accepted if all publication criteria are met, including alignment with the journal’s focus, absence of technical errors, and no ethical issues.
Requesting Revisions: If some conditions are unmet but can be resolved with minor adjustments, editors will request revisions.
Post-Revision Evaluation: Manuscripts are only accepted after all required conditions have been fulfilled, either in the initial manuscript or through the revision process.

If an author disagrees with a reviewer’s comments, the author should first provide a clear and respectful rebuttal addressing the points of disagreement. This process allows for constructive dialogue between the author and the reviewer, promoting transparency and fairness in the review process. The EiC will make the final decision, ensuring that it is based on an objective and fair evaluation of the manuscript.

9.6. Editors' Responsibilities and Final Decision

Editors hold a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal’s content. They are tasked with ensuring that the editorial process aligns with the journal's ethical guidelines and that all submissions are evaluated fairly. Editors are expected to:

Ensure Ethical Standards: Editors are responsible for upholding ethical standards throughout the editorial process. They must ensure that the content aligns with the journal’s mission, does not contain ethical issues, and is free from plagiarism or other forms of misconduct.
Make Transparent Decisions: Editors make decisions based on the scientific merit of a manuscript, its relevance to the journal’s focus, and the quality of its content. Decisions must be transparent and supported by clear rationale.
Highlight Any Conflicts of Interest: Editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality during the evaluation process. If the editor has a conflict, an alternate editor will be assigned to evaluate the manuscript.
Conduct Final Approval: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) is ultimately responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts after the review process is completed.

9.7. Handling Manuscript Acceptance and Revisions

Manuscript Acceptance: Editors are responsible for ensuring that the accepted manuscripts meet all publication criteria, including alignment with the journal’s focus, proper formatting, and adherence to ethical standards. Manuscripts will only be accepted once the reviewers’ comments have been addressed adequately.
Requesting Revisions: When minor issues are identified, the editor will request revisions from the authors. The authors must correct the identified problems and resubmit the manuscript for a second evaluation. Editors will review the revisions to ensure that the concerns raised by the reviewers have been adequately addressed.
Major Revisions and Re-Evaluation: If significant issues remain after the revision, the manuscript may be sent back for further revision or rejected. Editors must be thorough in ensuring that the scientific rigor of the manuscript is maintained, and ethical concerns are resolved.
Post-Revisions: Once the revisions are complete, the editor ensures that the manuscript is ready for final publication. Only after all required changes have been made and quality standards have been met will the manuscript be accepted for publication.

9.8. Dispute Resolution and Author Communication

Disagreements Between Authors and Reviewers: If an author disagrees with the feedback provided by reviewers, they have the right to respond with a clear and respectful rebuttal. The author should provide a reasoned argument for why certain suggestions may not be incorporated into the manuscript. This ensures that all parties engage in a constructive dialogue aimed at improving the quality of the paper.
EiC Intervention: In cases where disagreements remain unresolved after the rebuttal, the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) is available to mediate and provide an impartial decision. The EiC may re-evaluate the manuscript and the reviews or consult additional reviewers if necessary to resolve the situation fairly.
Final Decision: The final decision rests with the EiC, who must base their decision on an objective and thorough assessment of the manuscript. This process ensures that all manuscripts receive fair treatment, regardless of the authors’ background or the topic of the research.

10. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning encourages robust post-publication discussions, providing a platform for the scholarly community to engage in meaningful, evidence-based dialogue about the content and findings of published articles. We believe that such discussions are integral to the academic process, promoting transparency, further research, and the evolution of scientific knowledge. The journal offers several mechanisms for post-publication engagement:

Letters to the Editor: We invite readers to submit letters to the editor, sharing their perspectives, critiques, or additional insights related to specific articles. The editorial board reviews submissions and may publish selected letters to foster a balanced and scholarly exchange.

Comments on the Website: In order to maintain security and prevent misuse of the platform, the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning does not allow direct comments on the website. Instead, readers may submit their comments through the journal's submission system. These comments are reviewed and, when relevant, made available to facilitate an academic dialogue surrounding the article in question.

External Moderated Platforms: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning acknowledges the importance of external, moderated platforms such as PubPeer for scholarly discussions. These platforms provide a space for the wider academic community to discuss and critique the Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning articles, contributing to the advancement of knowledge beyond the journal’s immediate publication environment.

10.1. Corrections, Revisions, and Retractions

Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (is committed to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of its published content. In instances where errors or issues are identified after publication, the following measures will be taken:

Corrections:

Minor corrections, such as typographical errors or minor factual mistakes that do not alter the scientific content, will be addressed transparently. The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL) will issue a formal correction, clearly stating the error and providing accurate information. A correction statement will be included in the article, and relevant literature databases will be updated to reflect these changes.

Revisions:

In cases where substantial errors or inaccuracies are identified that impact the scientific content, the author(s) will be asked to submit a revised version of the article, incorporating the necessary corrections. The revised manuscript will undergo a thorough editorial review. If the revisions are accepted, the article will be republished with a note indicating that it has been revised.

Retractions:

In cases of severe misconduct, ethical violations, or fraudulent data, The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning may consider retracting an article. Retraction is reserved for situations where there is clear evidence of unreliability or falsification of data, or when findings have been published without proper attribution or consent. A retraction notice will be published in a subsequent issue, titled "Retraction Notice to: [Article Title], Vol. No. (Year) pp. (DOI)," signed by the authors and/or the editor. The DOI of the original article will remain active, but the PDF will include a watermark stating "RETRACTED" on all pages.

The retraction notice (including the DOI) will also be added in the abstract of the original article. The retraction notice will provide a clear explanation of the reasons for the retraction and identify who requested it (whether the authors or the editorial team). Additionally, the notice will specify the steps taken to investigate the issue, ensuring transparency in the process.

The journal does not charge fees for corrections or retractions. Please see our Policy for more detailed information on the article withdrawal, retraction, or correction process.

10.2. Compliance and Transparency

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL)’s editorial board, authors, and reviewers are expected to adhere to the policies outlined in this section. All actions related to corrections, revisions, and retractions will be documented thoroughly and made publicly available on the journal's website. The journal ensures transparency and accountability by maintaining accurate records and addressing any issues promptly.

11. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy

This policy aims to ensure transparency and provide guidance regarding the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process for authors, readers, reviewers, and editors. It specifically addresses the writing aspect of manuscripts and does not pertain to using AI tools for data analysis or insight generation in research.

11.1. Permitted Use of AI

While generative AI tools and AI-assisted technologies may enhance the readability, structure, and language of a manuscript, they must not replace critical intellectual contributions such as content creation, research design, or data analysis. Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI-generated content is used only to improve clarity, accuracy, and the academic tone of the manuscript. The authors must carry out the core intellectual work—formulating research questions, designing experiments, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions.

11.2. Clarification on AI Content Creation

Language editing and proofreading: AI can assist in improving the clarity, fluency, and grammatical correctness of a manuscript. AI tools can identify grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and improve sentence structure. However, the intellectual content and scientific accuracy must always remain under the control and responsibility of the authors.
Plagiarism checking: AI-based plagiarism detection tools (like Turnitin, iThenticate, etc.) can be used to ensure the originality of the manuscript and to verify that proper citation practices have been followed. These tools help to identify any unintentional copying of text, which is crucial for maintaining ethical standards in academic writing.

However, AI-generated content should not be used to generate new research ideas, design experiments, interpret data, or write substantial portions of the manuscript. The authors must independently craft these aspects of the manuscript, ensuring that the intellectual integrity and originality of the research and intellectual output remain intact. AI should be used as a tool, not a substitute for human expertise

11.3. Use of AI in Image Creation

The use of AI tools to create or alter images is prohibited unless the images are legally acquired through agencies with contractual agreements with the journal or are directly relevant to articles discussing AI technology. If AI tools are used to generate or modify images, these images must be clearly labeled as ‘Generated by AI’ and comply with copyright law. Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI-generated images do not infringe on any third-party rights.

For non-research purposes such as abstract graphics or cover art, the use of AI tools to generate or modify images should be avoided unless explicit permission has been obtained from the journal editor and publisher. In cases where permission is granted, the authors must ensure that all necessary rights have been cleared for the use of relevant material, and proper content attribution is ensured.

11.4. Responsibility for AI in Data Interpretation

AI tools are not allowed to independently interpret research data or draw conclusions from research findings. Any AI-assisted interpretation of data must be clearly explained and described in a reproducible manner within the methods section of the manuscript. This includes providing details on how AI tools were used to assist in interpreting the data, including the model, version, and manufacturer's details. AI should not be used to replace the core intellectual work of interpreting research data.

11.5. Disclosure Requirement

Starting from 2025, on Vol. 3 No. 1, the use or non-use of AI tools must be stated in the article.

Authors must disclose the use of AI tools in the preparation of their manuscripts. This includes specifying the AI tools used and their role in the manuscript’s development. Examples of disclosure are provided below:

“During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [TOOL/SOFTWARE] to assist in improving the readability, language, and overall structure of the manuscript. Following the use of this tool, the author(s) thoroughly reviewed and edited the content, ensuring its accuracy and integrity. The author(s) take full responsibility for the content and conclusions presented in the published article.”

“The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/) to refine our work’s academic language and accuracy. On 6 December 2024, the authors submitted several paragraphs with the instructions to “Improve the academic tone and accuracy of language, including grammatical structures, punctuation, and vocabulary” and “Please check the English grammar and make corrections where possible to improve the readability of the text.” The output (here) was then modified further to better represent our tone and style of writing. The editorial team has approved this acknowledgment of this journal.”

11.6. Prohibited Practices

Authorship Attribution: AI tools or AI-assisted technologies must not be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship entails responsibilities and tasks that only humans can perform.
Citation of AI as Authors: AI-generated content cannot be cited as authors. AI tools, including large language models, do not possess the capability to conceptualize research designs, ensure academic integrity, or validate the originality and validity of research.

In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ’s position statement on AI tools (2023) and AI tools should only be used responsibly and always under human supervision (Elsevier, 2023). Authors retain full responsibility and accountability for the content and conclusions of their work, ensuring that AI-generated content does not compromise the manuscript’s integrity or originality.

11.7. Use of AI in the Review Process

Reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to evaluate manuscripts or draft reviews. Instead, all assessments and feedback must reflect the reviewer’s expertise and judgment, ensuring the integrity and originality of the peer review process.

If a reviewer uses AI tools such as grammar or spell-checking for administrative purposes, they must disclose this to the editor and ensure that the final review reflects their own critical evaluation.

11.8. Use of AI in the Editorial Process

The manuscript submitted by the authors is considered confidential, and as such, the editor must not upload the manuscript to any AI tools, as doing so may violate the authors' intellectual property rights and data privacy. This prohibition also extends to notification letters or emails from authors, including for language translation purposes. Additionally, editors must refrain from using AI tools in the article evaluation process or manuscript decision-making, as AI-generated assessments could lead to incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions. Ultimately, the editor is responsible for overseeing the editorial process, making decisions regarding the manuscript, and maintaining clear communication with the authors.

12. Online-First Articles Policy

Online-First Articles (also known as Articles in Press) provide early online access to manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication but are not yet assigned to a specific issue or volume. These articles may undergo minor revisions, such as formatting or metadata updates, before their final publication. Each article is assigned a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI), allowing for immediate citation. We recommend citing these articles: Author(s), Article Title, Journal Name (year), and DOI.

Once an article is assigned to a specific volume or issue, its online-first version (or articles in press) will be replaced by the final published version. The article will be moved to the designated volume or issue and removed from the Online-First section. At this point, all remaining bibliographic details will be added.

Authors will receive notifications about any updates related to their articles. We encourage authors to regularly check the Online-First Articles section to stay informed about their work. Notifications will be sent when an article is assigned to a specific volume or issue for formal publication.

13. Policy on Ethical Publishing and Revision

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in all aspects of its publishing process. We ensure that all stakeholders, including authors, reviewers, editors, and readers, adhere to the principles outlined in our publication ethics policies. The journal will continue to monitor developments in publishing ethics and implement updates as necessary. Any revisions to this policy will be communicated to all stakeholders and published on the journal's website to maintain transparency and uphold academic integrity.

References:

Allen, L., O’Connell, A., & Kiermer, V. (2019). How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. LEAP, 24 January 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Why the core practices were replaced by topics. Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/about/what-we-do/our-story/why-core-practices-were-replaced-topics

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2023). COPE Position Statement on AI Tools. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author

Elsevier. (2023). The Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing for Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2018). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ictrp/en/

World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. World Medical Association. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/

Publication Ethics