Publication ethics & misconduct policy

The NICEC Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. 

Publication Ethics and Misconduct Statement

The journal follows principles of transparency, fairness, and scholarly rigour in all aspects of its publishing process. The journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and takes all appropriate measures to prevent publication malpractice.

Editorial independence

The Journal has editorial independence from NICEC. Decisions are based on the quality of submissions and the review process, and adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity. NICEC fellows and members who are not currently in an editorial or reviewer role may not influence the process of decision-making about article submissions. 

Open Access Statement

The journal is supported through voluntary contributions from NICEC Fellows and sponsorship from the Career Development Institute (CDI), the UK professional body for career practitioners.

  • There are no fees for submission or publication
  • The journal does not accept advertising revenue
  • All content is published open access and is free to read

This funding model ensures that editorial decisions are not influenced by financial considerations, and for the maximal collective benefit of our international communities to advance scholarly discussions.  

Peer-Review and Editorial Process 

All manuscripts submitted to the NICEC Journal undergo a rigorous peer review process.

  • Submissions are initially screened by the editorial team for suitability and scope
  • Suitable manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers
  • The journal adopts an open peer-review model to enhance transparency, accountability, and the quality of scholarly dialogue, thereby supporting a more constructive and developmental approach to academic review
  • Reviewers assess submissions based on originality, scholarly quality, methodological rigour, and relevance

Based on reviewer feedback, the editor may decide to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

  • Ensuring that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly and solely on academic merit
  • Maintaining confidentiality of submitted material
  • Selecting appropriately qualified reviewers
  • Managing conflicts of interest
  • Upholding the integrity of the peer review process

Editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in a submission for their own research without the author’s consent.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
  • Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts
  • Not use unpublished material for personal advantage
  • Declare any conflicts of interest and withdraw from the review process where necessary

Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting to the journal must ensure that:

  • Their work is original and has not been published elsewhere
  • The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal
  • All sources are appropriately cited
  • All listed authors have made a significant contribution and have approved the submission
  • Any conflicts of interest are disclosed

Authors must not engage in plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or data falsification.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation or publication of a manuscript. Where conflicts are identified, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure an impartial and fair review process.

Research ethics and academic integrity

Originality, authorship, and plagiarism

Articles must be the author(s)’ own original work.  Text must not be reproduced from other sources including the author’s own publications. Submissions must not be under consideration by other publications.  All authors must be aware of the submission and agree to being named as authors. Named authors must accurately reflect who contributed to the article. Submitting work written by unnamed authors, or conversely naming individuals who have made no significant contribution to the article is not acceptable. 

The editors reserve the right to use plagiarism detection software and similar methods at their discretion. 

Artificial intelligence

Any use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the writing of an article must be declared to the editor. The appropriateness will be considered on a case-by-case basis.  When submitting an article add a message to the editor notifying them on the tool used and the purpose it was used for. This message should also be sent by separate email to the editor. 

Ethics in empirical research

Authors affiliated with universities or research institutions are expected to have obtained appropriate ethical approval for their research. This should be stated within the manuscript.

Practitioners in career services may not have access to an ethical approval process. In this case they would be expected to indicate what steps they have taken to protect research participants e.g. providing participant briefing information; ensuring informed consent; anonymity and confidentiality; the right to withdraw; and data protection arrangements. 

Evaluation exercises in career services may be a normal activity for practitioners and not conceptualised as academic research. Articles reporting on these would be most suited to the Journal’s short article format. A paragraph explaining how participants were protected will be adequate.

No ethical approval process is expected for work on pre-existing published/public data sets. Here, the expectation is that data will already be fully anonymised and in the public domain. In the case of unpublished but anonymised administrative data sets, please consult the editor. 

Failure to meet the Journal’s standards for research ethics and academic integrity

The journal does not tolerate any form of publication misconduct, including:

  • plagiarism
  • duplicate or redundant publication
  • data fabrication or falsification
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • manipulation of the peer review process

Suspected misconduct will be investigated and may result in rejection, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions.

Copyright

Material published in the Journal is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. This means that the article may be shared freely, provided the source/author is clearly acknowledged and no changes are made to the text.  Authors may share their final published version of the article on their own website or institutional repository. We ask that this is done by sharing the article weblink (not the pdf), as this will raise awareness of the Journal among potential readers. 

By submitting an article, authors agree to the following terms:

  1. In submitting an article, the Author hereby grants to NICEC the exclusive first publication right to the paper submitted by him / her for inclusion in the publication named above and the non-exclusive rights thereafter to publish and authorise the publication of all articles and all parts, adaptations and abridgements thereof in all forms and media throughout the world.
  2. In consideration for the above grant of rights, and subject to delivery of acceptable material, NICEC hereby undertakes to prepare for publication and publish the paper unless prevented by circumstances beyond its control.
  3. The Author agrees that NICEC may make minor changes to areas such as formatting, spelling, referencing, layout or punctuation, to ensure quality and uniformity of style.
  4. NICEC agrees that the Author may share the final published PDF of their article (e.g. publication to the Author’s web profile, or institutional repository).
  5. The Author warrants to NICEC that in respect of the paper submitted: (i) it does not infringe any existing copyright or licence; (ii) except where the Author, at the time of submission of the paper, notifies NICEC, the paper is original; (iii) the Author has the full power to make this assignment and that this assignment does not infringe the rights or licence of any other person, and that where there a co-author, the co-author also fully agrees to the terms in this document; (iv) the paper contains nothing defamatory or otherwise unlawful and no information has been obtained in contravention of legislation currently in force (v) submission of the paper demonstrates acceptance of all these conditions.

Corrections and retractions

In the event that incorrect information has been published in an article in the Journal, then this should be bought to the attention of the editor-in-chief at the earliest opportunity.  In the case of minor errors or omissions then a short correction statement will be issued in the next published issue. 

In the event there are substantial incorrect findings in an article, or substantive concerns raised about plagiarism, fabrication of data, unethical research processes, failure to disclose relevant interests, compromised review process, legality or copyright, then an investigation will be undertaken. The procedure will follow the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).  The Editorial Board will have the final decision on the outcome, and this may include a retraction of the article. In this event a brief statement will be published in the first available issue giving the reasons for the retraction. 

Complaints and appeals

Complaints should in the first instance be sent to the editor-in-chief. Authors will receive a response within three working weeks.

In the event that the response is not satisfactory, or the complaint relates to the conduct of the editor-in-chief, then complaints can be escalated to the Chair of the National Institute for Career Education and Counselling. 

Editorial decisions about articles are final. Articles may be rejected at any point in the process prior to publication if the Journal’s requirements are not met. The only grounds for appeal against a decision is if the author can supply evidence that the Journal’s review and editorial processes have not been correctly followed. In this instance, the author should make a written submission to the editor-in-chief, who is then obliged to refer the matter to the editorial board.