Journal for School Superintendents · Policy effective 15 October 2026
Human judgment.
Traceable scholarship.
Authorship, research sources, software contribution and editorial decisions are distinct responsibilities. This policy makes those distinctions visible throughout the new issue programme. Published by The Research University.
01
Human authorship
Authors are people who make the actual scholarly contribution, substantively review and approve the manuscript, and accept responsibility for it. Source-library authorship is never reassigned to a platform owner. An AI model, Paper Agent or journal is not entered as the human author of a research article.
02
New work and adaptations
New conceptual work identifies its distinct argument and the evidence it uses. Adaptations identify the original work, authors, venue, DOI, reusable version, exact license and changes made, retaining applicable copyright and disclaimer notices. Free-to-read access and a data-only CC0 waiver are insufficient to license article text. NC, ND, unclear or conflicting rights are held outside this programme.
03
Optional assistance, equal editorial standards
Authors may use tools to brainstorm, outline, draft or revise where lawful and permitted. Tool use confers no preference in review. The human author must make and approve the scholarly contribution. No language can guarantee acceptance by every discipline; authors must also satisfy the requirements of the journal and their institution.
04
AI disclosure
AI-assisted drafting, analysis, translation or retrieval must be described accurately, with the actual tool and available version/date. A software citation can supplement the disclosure. Tool use is not human authorship and does not remove the named humans’ responsibility to check claims, references and permissions. Substantive drafting or analysis must not be described merely as brainstorming. Authors verify references against original sources, examine potential errors and bias, document relevant methods, and retain responsibility for the final text. We do not invent a model version.
05
Confidential manuscripts and data
Authors must have authority to share submitted material and protect participant privacy. Reviewers and editors treat unpublished submissions as confidential. They must not upload manuscript text to an external AI service without explicit permission and assured confidentiality. Permitted assistance is disclosed; the reviewer personally evaluates the work and takes responsibility for the report.
06
Human peer review
AI may support permitted technical or language checks, subject to confidentiality and authorization. It cannot complete independent human peer review. A generated critique is not presented as an expert reviewer’s report. Acceptance, rejection and publication require the journal’s actual human editorial process and retained records.
07
Editor-authored submissions
When Dr. Freedom Cheteni or another editor is an author, an independent handling editor must manage review and the publication decision. Conflicts must be disclosed. Appointment to an editorial office does not permit self-review or self-acceptance. Dr. Cheteni’s original manuscripts enter administrative intake automatically, including existing records and future submissions identified by authenticated ORCID or the recorded editorial appointment. Intake neither submits an unconfirmed draft nor establishes peer review. A non-author, appointed editor records independent handling, conflicts and proposed volume placement. Two distinct human reviewers must recommend acceptance in the current round; the handling editor records the separate decision. Authors cannot advance their own editorial or publication stages. Review of the Volume 1 conceptual text by Dr. Vickie Aultmon was confirmed by Dr. Freedom Cheteni on 15 October 2026. A01 version 3.0 adds a primary-study protocol, data-feasibility audit and methods code. The public review record preserves the earlier review’s scope rather than extending it automatically to substantive new content. It is distinct from reviewer-authored reports and the separate handling editor’s acceptance decision.
08
Dates and versions
Preparation, submission, acceptance, online publication, source publication and correction dates describe different events. A new retrospective written in 2026 is not a publication from 2017 simply because it discusses a 2017 source. Historical dates require contemporaneous supporting records. Review confirmation dates are recorded separately from review, acceptance and publication dates.
09
DOIs and metadata
Register only content for which the responsible publisher has the necessary rights, using an authorized prefix and accurate metadata. Existing source DOIs remain attached to their original works. A hosted copy or agent does not automatically justify a replacement DOI for the source article. Never display an invented or unregistered DOI. Membership, prefix allocation and content eligibility must be confirmed with Crossref.
10
Agents and contributor credit
A Paper Agent is a separate software or interactive companion. Credit to Dr. Freedom Cheteni and Research University Journal / JournalOS describes actual platform conception, development, curation or stewardship, not authorship of source studies. ORCID identifies individual researchers; software credit must reflect the person’s real contribution and the relevant record’s actual authorization.
11
Corrections and preservation
Published content must retain stable landing pages, original attribution, version and correction relationships. A correction or retraction is linked to the affected work and preserved in its history. Source checks record their date and limits. A snapshot or checksum supports integrity checking but is not a guarantee of research validity or a substitute for a sustained preservation arrangement.
12
Issue status and licensing
The Leadership, Learning Work and the Future of School programme contains 100 source briefs and 11 complete scholarly manuscripts. Public research-and-methods editions are distinguished from accepted journal publications. The source articles have independently identifiable CC BY 4.0 notices. A proposed CC BY license for new manuscript text requires the human author’s actual approval and an editorial acceptance/publication decision.
Reference guidance
- ICMJE: Artificial intelligence in publishing
- ICMJE: Conflicts, recusal and editorial decisions
- COPE: Authorship and AI tools
- Crossref membership and member obligations
- Crossref guidance on Zenodo DOIs
- Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 terms
Policy references do not imply membership of, endorsement by or certification from any named organization. ICMJE guidance was checked on 15 October 2026. COPE’s full guidance page was access-restricted during this audit; the AI role distinction also follows the Crossref correspondence supplied by the publisher. These are editorial policies of this journal, informed by the named guidance, rather than a claim of universal disciplinary agreement.