Menu
TECHNOLOGIQUE
Open access
Editorial policies
Section 1. Communicate with respect
Technologique affirms that respectful communication is fundamental to the integrity of scholarly publishing. The journal is committed to fostering relationships among authors, reviewers, editors, and readers that are grounded in professionalism, courtesy, and mutual trust. All interactions within the editorial and peer review process must be conducted with civility, free from harassment, discrimination, or aggressive behavior. Authors are expected to engage with reviewers’ comments constructively, recognizing that critique is intended to strengthen the quality of scholarship. Reviewers, in turn, must provide feedback that is thoughtful, fair, and focused on the work rather than the individual. Editors are responsible for ensuring that dialogue between parties remains collegial and transparent, and that decisions are communicated clearly and respectfully. The journal does not tolerate any form of bullying, intimidation, or discriminatory language directed at contributors, reviewers, or staff. Upholding respect in communication ensures that the publishing process remains inclusive, equitable, and conducive to advancing knowledge. By maintaining these standards, Technologique strengthens its role as a trusted platform for scholarly exchange.
Section 2. Publication ethics
The Technologique is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity and ethical publishing. In doing so, the journal fully adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These principles served as the foundation of our editorial and publishing framework, ensuring that every aspect of the journal’s operations reflects fairness, accountability, and transparency. The practices outlined by COPE are embodied in the journal’s commitment to responsible authorship, rigorous peer review, clear editorial oversight, and respect for diversity and inclusivity in scholarly communication. While this statement affirms our alignment with COPE’s guidelines, specific ethical areas, such as authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, data sharing, and other aspects of responsible publishing, are discussed in detail in the succeeding statements under this Editorial Policies section. Through this overarching commitment, Technologique underscores its highest dedication to publication integrity, safeguarding the credibility of the scholarly record and fostering trust among authors, reviewers, and readers.
Section 3. Publication malpractice
The Technologique commits itself to attaining the highest degree of publication integrity. In line with this commitment, the journal strictly monitors and addresses malpractices in scholarly publishing, guided by the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All forms of misconduct are treated with seriousness, and corrective measures are applied following COPE’s flowcharts, case discussions, and best practice guidelines. Below are the malpractice scenarios that are strictly prohibited:
a. Plagiarism and Redundant Publication. Submitting work that copies others without proper attribution or publishing the same research in multiple journals is prohibited. Technologique follows the COPE flowcharts for editors on how to handle suspected plagiarism and redundant publication, ensuring investigations are fair and transparent.
Reference: COPE Flowcharts for Editors
b. Data Fabrication and Falsification. Manipulating or inventing data to mislead readers undermines the credibility of the scholarly record. Following COPE’s principles, the journal undergoes thorough investigation on concerns raised by reviewers or whistleblowers, applying corrective actions such as retractions, if necessary.
Reference: COPE Flowcharts and Guidance
c. Authorship Misconduct. Practices such as “ghost authorship” (unacknowledged contributors), “guest authorship” (adding names without contribution), or disputes over inclusion/removal of authors are strictly prohibited. COPE identifies ghost, guest, or gift authorship as unethical. Technologique follows COPE’s guidance for resolving disputes fairly.
Reference: COPE Authorship Guidance
d. Peer Review Manipulation. Reviewers appropriating authors’ ideas or data, or conflicts of interest in the review process, are considered malpractice. Technologique outlines monitoring practices to ensure peer review remains impartial, confidential, and free from exploitation.
Reference: COPE Core Practices Overview
e. Clinical and Research Malpractice. Submissions reporting unethical clinical or research practices are subject to strict scrutiny. Technologique subscribes to COPE’s case discussions to guide editors on whether and how to act when malpractice is suspected, ensuring ethical responsibility is upheld.
Reference: COPE Case: Clinical Malpractice
Section 4. Institutional ethics approval
Technologique requires that all submitted manuscripts explicitly state the acquisition of ethical approval from the appropriate institutional body, such as a school, university, or research ethics committee, in accordance with the ethical requirements set forth by the institution. Authors must confirm that corresponding ethical approval documents have been obtained, duly approved, and attached in the appendix section of the original manuscript. This ensures that all research published in the journal adheres to recognized standards of ethical conduct and accountability.
In circumstances where institutional-level ethical approval is not mandated, authors may reference established global and national frameworks, provided that their ethical tenets are strictly observed. These include the American Sociological Association Code of Ethics, the British Sociological Association Statement of Ethical Practice, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Framework for Research Ethics, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and the Social Science Ethics Review Board (SSERB) of the Philippine Social Science Council (PSSC). As Technologique operates within the broader social science domain, these frameworks are highly appropriate for ensuring compliance with ethical requirements in studies involving human participants.
All research involving human participants must demonstrate clear evidence of informed consent, with strict provisions safeguarding the safety, dignity, and welfare of participants throughout the research process. Ethical compliance also requires transparency in reporting and accountability in protecting participant rights. By enforcing these standards, Technologique affirms its commitment to responsible scholarship, promotes openness in research practices, and upholds the highest ethical benchmarks in academic publishing.
Section 5. Authorship and contributions
Authorship and contributions in Technologique are guided by the principles of integrity, accountability, and transparency, consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Authorship. Authorship is reserved for those who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research, ensuring that credit is given only where intellectual responsibility has been demonstrated. As COPE emphasizes, “authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work”. This underscores the dual nature of authorship: recognition of contribution and acceptance of responsibility.
In line with COPE’s recommendations, all authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for its integrity. COPE advises that journals should adopt clear policies to prevent disputes, noting that “appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always easy”. By requiring explicit approval and accountability, Technologique ensures that authorship is not merely symbolic but reflects genuine scholarly engagement and ethical responsibility.
Contributor roles are clearly defined, and statements of author contributions are required to ensure transparency. This practice reflects COPE’s guidance that journals should establish mechanisms to distinguish between authorship and contributorship, thereby avoiding ambiguity. COPE highlights the importance of contributorship models, stating that “authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work”. By mandating contribution statements, Technologique aligns with best practices that safeguard against inappropriate authorship claims, such as “guest” or “gift” authorship, which COPE identifies as unethical.
Acknowledgments are reserved for those who provided technical support, funding, or other assistance but do not meet authorship criteria. This distinction is critical, as COPE’s guidelines stress that individuals who do not meet the threshold for authorship should still be recognized appropriately, but not conflated with authors. Such clarity prevents misrepresentation and ensures that the scholarly record accurately reflects the intellectual labor behind the work.
Ultimately, the journal’s policy on authorship and contributions embodies COPE’s broader commitment to ethical publishing. By requiring substantial scholarly input, explicit approval of the final manuscript, accountability for integrity, and transparent contributor statements, Technologique fosters a culture of fairness and responsibility. This approach not only protects the credibility of the journal but also strengthens trust among authors, reviewers, and readers, ensuring that published work reflects genuine scholarship and ethical practice.
Section 6. Peer review process
The Technologique journal adheres to a double-anonymous review procedure, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain unknown to each other throughout the evaluation process. This approach safeguards impartiality and fairness, allowing manuscripts to be judged solely on their scholarly merit and contribution to the field of pedagogy. The peer review process is carefully structured and involves three major persons: the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, and the Associate Editors, each playing a distinct role in maintaining the rigor and integrity of the journal.
The Executive Editor serves as the operational coordinator of the review process. Upon submission of a manuscript, the Executive Editor conducts an initial screening to verify compliance with journal requirements, formatting standards, and ethical guidelines. The Executive Editor also ensures that author-identifying information is removed to preserve anonymity. Once these checks are complete, the manuscript is forwarded to the editorial leadership for scholarly evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief provides strategic oversight, ensuring that the journal’s scope and standards are consistently upheld. The editor-in-chief makes key decisions on whether a manuscript should proceed to peer review or be declined at the preliminary stage. Supporting this process are the Associate Editors, who bring subject-matter expertise. They evaluate the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and its scholarly soundness, and they recommend suitable reviewers from the academic community.
Section 7. Conflict of interest
Technologique adheres to strict rules and policies regarding conflicts of interest, recognizing that impartiality and transparency are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing. The journal enforces rigorous standards to ensure that all participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editorial board members, and editors, uphold the highest levels of ethical responsibility. No manuscript, review, or editorial decision will be allowed to proceed without full disclosure of any interests that could compromise objectivity. This commitment reflects international best practices and aligns with the Council of Science Editors’ guidance that even the perception of bias can erode trust in the journal’s credibility.
All participants must disclose financial, institutional, personal, political, or academic interests that may influence their judgment. Conflicts may be actual, potential, or perceived, and disclosures must be made at the time of submission or review. Editors are responsible for monitoring these disclosures, delegating decisions when conflicts arise, and ensuring that manuscripts from colleagues, collaborators, or their own institutions are handled independently. Reviewers must recuse themselves if impartiality cannot be guaranteed, and authors must declare funding sources, affiliations, and any competing interests. The journal maintains a written conflict of interest policy that is regularly reviewed, published openly, and enforced consistently. By prioritizing fairness, impartiality, and transparency, Technologique safeguards the credibility of its peer-review process and reinforces its commitment to the highest standards of scholarly integrity.
Section 8. Ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI)
Technologique recognizes the potential of AI to support scholarly communication but emphasizes that human authors and reviewers carry full responsibility for the integrity, originality, and ethical standards of published work. Anent to this, the journal carries its policy towards the ethical use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on the provisions set forth in COPE’s Position on Authorship and AI Tools.
For authors, Technologique requires full transparency in the use of artificial intelligence. Any AI assistance in writing, editing, data analysis, or figure creation must be clearly disclosed within the manuscript, typically in the acknowledgments or methods section. AI tools cannot be credited as authors, and human contributors remain solely responsible for the accuracy, originality, and ethical integrity of their work. Authors must ensure that AI is not used to fabricate data as well as manipulate or plagiarize images and other illustrations.
For reviewers and editors, the journal emphasizes confidentiality and independent scholarly judgment. Manuscripts must not be processed or evaluated using AI tools, as this may compromise privacy and intellectual property. While editors may employ AI-assisted tools for routine checks such as plagiarism detection or reference management, substantive peer review and editorial decisions must be made by humans. Strictly, reviewers are not allowed to upload manuscripts under review into generative AI tools. Editors are tasked with monitoring compliance with this policy, and any misuse or nondisclosure of AI involvement may result in rejection, correction, or retraction of the manuscript.
Section 9. Corrections and retractions
Technologique adheres to strict compliance with the tenets of retraction as part of its commitment to uphold the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal recognizes that while retraction is a necessary safeguard against flawed or unethical scholarship, authors may also appeal for corrections and rectifications when inconsistencies or errors are identified in their published work. Both retractions and corrections are governed by transparent procedures to ensure fairness, accountability, and credibility in the publication process.
In line with international best practices, Technologique implements strict retraction policies when an article, despite having undergone rigorous peer review, is later found by the global scientific community to be flawed, erroneous, or inaccurate. Retraction may be warranted in cases of misconduct, serious methodological errors, or findings that cannot be reliably reproduced. Even after publication, the journal will adhere to the call of the scientific community and retract any article that compromises the integrity of the scholarly record. Retraction notices are issued promptly, remain permanently linked to the original article, and clearly state the reasons for retraction to maintain transparency.
Technologique recognizes the right of authors to request corrections when they discover inconsistencies or errors in their published manuscripts. A systematic procedure is followed for such requests: authors must complete a “Request for Correction” form and email it to the Executive Editor. An acknowledgement will be sent to the author upon receipt, and a window of two weeks will be provided to address the requested corrections, including the publication of the corrected manuscript. This process ensures that legitimate errors are rectified efficiently while preserving the accuracy and reliability of the journal’s content.
Section 10. Data sharing and transparency
Technologique promotes transparency in all yielded data, recognizing that openness is essential to the credibility and reproducibility of scholarly work. Authors of published articles are strongly encouraged to share their datasets, materials, and protocols in recognized repositories wherever available. By making data accessible, the journal ensures that findings are open to scrutiny, validation, and extension by the wider scientific community.
To support this commitment, authors may deposit their data in established repositories such as Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad, or discipline-specific archives like ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) for education-related studies. These platforms provide secure, citable, and open access to research outputs, enabling other scholars to replicate analyses, apply new methodologies, or integrate datasets into broader investigations. This practice not only strengthens transparency but also fosters collaboration, innovation, and trust in the published record of Technologique.
Section 11. Confidentiality
Business Fora enforces strict confidentiality in all aspects of the editorial and peer review process, in line with the Council of Science Editors’ standards. Editors, reviewers, and staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as privileged documents, ensuring that information is not shared outside those directly involved in evaluation, review, and publication. This obligation extends to correspondence, reviewer reports, and unpublished data, which must be safeguarded against unauthorized access or use. Confidentiality notices are included in communications to remind participants of their responsibilities, and embargo policies are strictly enforced to prevent premature disclosure of accepted content. Editors and reviewers are prohibited from using confidential information for personal advantage or sharing it with third parties, and breaches of confidentiality are addressed promptly and transparently.
To uphold these principles, Business Fora maintains secure systems for storing, archiving, and, when necessary, destroying manuscript files and related records in accordance with established industry standards. Editors must resist external pressures, including requests from sales teams, media, or legal inquiries, unless disclosure is required by law and advised by legal counsel. Manuscripts under review remain confidential until formally published, with exceptions only in rare cases where findings have urgent societal or health implications. Reviewers are reminded that manuscripts are confidential documents and may not be cited, discussed, or used until publication. By adhering to these provisions, Business Fora ensures that the integrity of the peer review process is preserved, trust among authors and reviewers is maintained, and the journal’s reputation for fairness and ethical publishing is protected.
Section 12. Open access statement
Technologique is an open access journal dedicated to ensuring that scholarly work is freely available to the global community without subscription barriers. The journal embodies the true tenets of open access by promoting equitable access to knowledge, fostering collaboration, and maximizing the visibility and impact of published research. Each published article is assigned with a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI) provided by the third-party organization Crossref, making retrieval easy, convenient, and permanent across digital platforms. The open access logo/seal embedded in the journal reflects its firm commitment to this principle, affirming that all readers, regardless of institutional or geographic affiliation, can freely access, read, and utilize its content as a public good.
Section 13. Licensing and copyright
Authors retain full copyright of their manuscripts but grant Technologique a license to publish under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided proper credit is given to the original authors. As outlined by Creative Commons, CC BY allows others to copy, remix, adapt, and build upon published content – even for commercial purposes – while safeguarding author rights through mandatory attribution. By adopting CC BY, the journal supports open science principles, complies with funder mandates, and enhances dissemination and citation potential. This policy underscores Technologique’s mission to democratize knowledge, uphold transparency, and ensure that educational research remains a freely accessible and enduring scholarly resource.
Section 14. Plagiarism and similarity check
Technologique enforces strict compliance with academic integrity. Hence, all submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening through a third-party provider – Plagiarism Checker. This process ensures that manuscripts represent original scholarly contributions and that proper acknowledgment is given to prior work. The journal sets a clear threshold: only manuscripts with a similarity report of 20% or below will be accepted for consideration. This standard reflects the journal’s commitment to maintaining credibility, fairness, and respect for intellectual property in the academic publishing process.
If a manuscript exceeds the prescribed similarity percentage, it will be returned to the author for revision. Authors are required to follow established procedures in restating and/or paraphrasing extracted literature to reduce the similarity index and meet the minimum requirement. Proper citation and referencing must be observed to transparently acknowledge all sources. Manuscripts that fail to comply after revision may be subject to rejection, and published articles later found to contain plagiarism may be retracted. By implementing this policy, Technologique safeguards the originality of its content, reinforces ethical publishing practices, and upholds the highest standards of scholarly integrity.
Section 15. Editorial independence
The journal adheres to the principle of strict editorial independence as outlined in the Editorial Independence Policy of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Thus, the editorial decisions of the journal are made free from commercial, political, or institutional influence, ensuring that the integrity of scholarly communication is preserved. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board have full authority over the selection, review, and acceptance of content, guided solely by the quality, relevance, and scholarly merit of submissions. This autonomy is fundamental to maintaining trust in the journal and protecting the credibility of its published record.
In line with COPE’s position, sponsors, advertisers, owners, or institutional stakeholders cannot interfere with editorial decision-making or peer review outcomes. Editorial freedom is safeguarded through transparent governance structures, written policies, and clear accountability of decision-making editors. The journal commits to resisting undue pressure, whether financial or political, and ensures that editorial priorities are aligned only with its mission to advance pedagogy and educational research. By upholding these standards, Technologique guarantees that its content reflects independent scholarly judgment, free from external interests, and remains accountable to the global academic community.
Section 16. Appeals and complaints
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned letter to the Editor-in-Chief (mmacuha@spumanila.edu.ph), clearly outlining the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are reviewed carefully and objectively, with decisions based solely on the scholarly merit of the submission and adherence to the journal’s editorial standards. The journal commits to providing timely responses and ensuring that appeals are handled without bias or undue influence.
Complaints regarding editorial conduct, peer review, or published content are addressed through a transparent and structured process. Authors, reviewers, or readers may raise concerns by submitting a formal complaint to the Executive Editor (vmcajala@digi-journalphils.com), who will acknowledge receipt and initiate an impartial review. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the matter may be referred to the Editorial Board for resolution. Outcomes of complaints are communicated clearly to all parties involved, and corrective measures, including corrections, retractions, or policy adjustments, are implemented when necessary. By maintaining these procedures, Technologique reinforces its commitment to ethical publishing and the integrity of the scholarly record.
Section 17. Retained data and materials
Technologique requires authors to retain all raw data, research materials, and supporting documentation to uphold the integrity of the scholarly record, allowing independent verification, dispute resolution, and validation of findings. Authors must ensure these materials remain accessible for a reasonable period after publication and are strongly encouraged to share software, code, and protocols in recognized repositories to support reproducibility and transparency. By retaining and, where possible, openly sharing data and materials, authors strengthen accountability, foster collaboration, enable replication, and reinforce confidence in the reliability and impact of the journal’s published content.
Section 18. Archiving and repository
Technologique is committed to the long-term preservation and accessibility of its published content, recognizing that archiving is essential to safeguarding the scholarly record and ensuring that research remains available for future generations. The published version of record (VOR) for each article is initially deposited and maintained on the publisher’s official website, serving as the primary authoritative source. In addition, all VORs are systematically archived through the Internet Archive, a trusted third-party digital repository, to provide an additional layer of preservation and redundancy.
By depositing articles in both the publisher’s platform and the Internet Archive, Technologique guarantees that its content is permanently accessible, retrievable, and protected against technological obsolescence or accidental loss. This dual-archiving procedure ensures that research articles can be consulted, cited, and verified at any time, thereby reinforcing the journal’s commitment to transparency, reliability, and the enduring value of scholarly communication.