•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics Statement

Contents

Introduction

At MWER, we take ethical publication practices seriously. Our editorial team and all submitting authors must uphold publication ethics standards set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). Cases of ethical misconduct will be handled in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

I. Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

a. Decision Making & Communication

The Editors and Associate Editors consider all reviews when making decisions about manuscripts and evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy. Submission decisions will be based on the submission’s relevance to the journal's aims and scope, appropriateness of the submission according to the submission type (e.g., feature article), and quality of the manuscript (e.g., justification, grounding in current and relevant literature, validity, methodological transparency and rigor). Legal requirements regarding libel and plagiarism will be upheld. Once finalized, the editors send a decision email to the author, including any reviewer comments.

b. Confidentiality

Reviews are masked; reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s) of manuscripts. When author(s) submit manuscripts in the “Graduate Student Scholarship” or “Voices from the Classroom” categories, reviewers will be notified only of the status of the author(s) as graduate student(s) or educator(s). Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

c. Conflicts of Interest

The editors and editorial staff will not review submissions in which there are personal conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submissions; rather, they will ask another member of the editorial team to handle the manuscript.

The editors and editorial staff will not use unpublished information related to a submission in their own research without written permission from the authors.

II. Responsibilities of Author(s)

a. Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by a thorough discussion of the significance of the work. The submission should contain sufficient detail and references for readers to fully comprehend the context and processes of the work. Review articles should be accurate, fair, and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior.

b. Originality and Plagiarism

The submission must be the original and unpublished work of the author(s) and must properly and accurately reference the work of others. Text generated by AI (such as ChatGPT) should be cited according to the most current APA guidelines. Legal requirements regarding libel and plagiarism will be upheld.

c. Authorship

All authors identified in the submission must have made a significant contribution to the research. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors are identified as authors when submitting the manuscript and that all co-authors have agreed to the manuscript’s submission and approved the version for review and publication.

d. Peer Review

Author(s) must follow the conventions of peer review and cooperate fully with the editor’s requests. If the editor requests revisions and resubmission, the author(s) is expected to address the peer review feedback within the timeframe established by the editor.

e. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publications

An author should not in general publish pieces describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

f. Conflicts of Interest and Financial Disclosures

All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed. All authors should disclose in their submission any financial or other substantive potential conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their piece.

g. Fundamental Errors

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the submission. If the editors learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the submission or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the submission.

h. Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

III. Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

a. Contributions to Editorial Decision

Feedback from peer reviewers is essential to the quality of research. It helps the editor make publishing decisions, assists the author(s) with improving their submissions, and upholds the integrity of the publishing process and scholarly record.

 

b. Expertise

Reviewers must decline or withdraw from the review process if they lack the expertise necessary to evaluate the submission.

 

c. Promptness

Reviewers are typically expected complete their reviews within 21 days (unless the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, which then is the following workday). If reviewers cannot meet the deadline, they should inform the editor in a timely manner to request more time or withdraw from the review process.

d. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers must identify any relevant published work they know of that the author has not referenced in the submissions. Reviewers also must bring to the editor’s immediate attention any suspected ethical violation or misconduct.

e. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat every submission as privileged and confidential and refrain from discussing the materials with others.

f. Standards of Objectivity

Reviewers must conduct reviews fairly and respectfully and without personal criticisms of the author. Reviewers also should support comments with evidence and/or arguments.

g. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers will not use unpublished information related to submission in their own research without written permission from authors.