Editorial constitution

Trust should be visible in the record.

The journal is governed by a simple obligation: readers must be able to understand the argument, assess the evidence, and carry an insight into practice without losing its limits or provenance.

The record standard

These are publication requirements. DOI registration, indexing, and preservation are identified on each record only when verified.

One structured source

The production standard requires validated JATS XML before a record is described as canonical; accessible HTML, PDF, metadata, and agent representations must derive from that version.

JATS 1.4

Authenticated identity

Author identifiers must be verified through authenticated workflows—not accepted as unverified text—and contribution roles follow the CRediT taxonomy.

ORCID criteria

Two kinds of expertise

Peer-reviewed work is evaluated by both a research or method specialist and an experienced education-practice leader. Editors remain responsible for decisions.

NISO peer-review terminology

Corrections are first-class

Publication policy requires version history, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions to propagate across every active representation; Crossmark is claimed only after verified deposit.

Crossmark

Access is the whole journey

WCAG 2.2 AA is the baseline for reading, submitting, reviewing, editing, and proofing—not only for public article pages.

WCAG 2.2

Preservation, not just backup

Publication policy requires versioned deposits, stable identifiers, and continuous preservation before archival status is claimed. A server backup is not a scholarly archive.

DOAJ guidance

Editorial leadership

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Freedom Cheteni

Dr. Cheteni leads the journal’s editorial direction, standards, appointments, and final publication decisions. Registered scholars and education leaders may request an editorial role through the authenticated workspace; access is activated only after human approval.

Meet the editorial team Register / sign in

Human accountability

What automation may never decide.

Acceptance or rejection

Editors—not scores, language models, or integrity tools—make and explain every decision.

Reviewer fitness

Automation may organize declared expertise; it cannot determine independence or replace conflict review.

Research integrity

Signals prompt proportionate human inquiry. A flag is not a finding of misconduct.

Authorial responsibility

Automated tools cannot be authors. Material use must be disclosed and every claim remains the authors’ responsibility.

Paper Agent architecture

The agent is derived. The article remains the authority.

We adapt Paper2Agent’s strongest ideas—source snapshots, provenance manifests, review gates, verified tool boundaries, and independent checks—without treating an executable agent as the scholarly record itself.

Version lock

Every answer identifies the exact article version and becomes stale when that version is corrected or withdrawn.

Passage evidence

Substantive answers link to stable paragraphs, tables, figures, notes, or review-history records.

Honest refusal

When the selected record does not support an answer, the agent says so plainly.

Execution boundary

Executable supplements run separately in hardened, disposable workers—never in the public journal application or confidential review workflow.

Open foundation, explicit boundary

View source

Accessibility & openness

No account is required to read.

Public articles, review status, disclosures, corrections, and accessible full text will remain open. Sign-in is reserved for private records and attributed actions such as submissions, reviews, proofs, and saved reading.