The journal Education in the 21st Century institutes a rigorous jurisprudential and ethical framework governing the dissemination of scholarly research. This statutory declaration aligns unequivocally with the COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Specific procedural regulations are codified in the journal's supplementary policy documents.

1. Editorial Imperatives and Collegial Arbitration

• Adjudicative Authority and Collegial Arbitration: The Editor-in-Chief exercises final executive authority over manuscript publication, predicated upon double-blind peer review. However, in instances involving substantive ethical disputes, diametrically opposed reviewer verdicts, or allegations of academic misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief is mandated to invoke a collegial arbitration mechanism. Such cases are referred to the Editorial Board, or a designated ethics committee, for comprehensive investigation and consultative resolution, ensuring that the ultimate executive decision is fundamentally impartial and procedurally transparent. Grievances regarding editorial decisions are processed exclusively through the formal Appeals and Complaints Policy.

• Strict Nondisclosure: The editorial syndicate is bound by a strict mandate of confidentiality. Privileged proprietary data pertaining to submissions shall not be disseminated to any unauthorized entity.

• Conflicts of Interest: Editorial personnel are strictly enjoined from expropriating unpublished intellectual property. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board members mandate their own recusal in scenarios presenting substantive financial, institutional, or interpersonal conflicts of interest.

2. Reviewer Obligations and Peer Review Integrity

• Scholarly Arbitration: The double-blind peer review mechanism functions as the fundamental instrument of scholarly arbitration, facilitating evidentiary decision-making.

• Expeditious Compliance: Referees possessing inadequate methodological expertise or lacking the temporal capacity to execute a timely evaluation are bound by duty to formally decline the arbitration mandate forthwith.

• Evidentiary Objectivity: Arbitrations must be executed with unimpeachable objectivity. Ad hominem critiques are strictly prohibited. Reviewers are mandated to substantiate their verdicts with verifiable academic evidence, acting in absolute accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

3. Authorial Liabilities and Academic Integrity

• Empirical Veracity: Authors must submit an impeccably accurate elucidation of their empirical investigations. The fabrication or intentional misrepresentation of data constitutes egregious academic malfeasance. Provisions regarding raw data access are governed by the journal's Data Availability Policy.

• Originality and Attribution: Authors must warrant the absolute originality of their manuscript. Detailed frameworks governing academic integrity, including plagiarism detection parameters and the regulated use of generative technologies, are codified in the journal's dedicated Plagiarism Checking Policy and AI Policy and Use of Generative Technologies.

• Prohibition of Redundant Publication: The concurrent submission of a manuscript to multiple publication venues is recognized as a fundamental breach of academic protocol and is strictly prohibited.

• Post-Publication Remediation: Upon the detection of substantive empirical or theoretical fallacies within a published corpus, the author bears the fiduciary obligation to immediately alert the editorial board and facilitate the issuance of a formal erratum or the retraction of the manuscript.