The Philippine Journal of Public Policy is committed to, and abides by, the guidelines and principles from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning all aspects of publication, such as authorship, peer review, research ethics, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, retraction, complaints, and misconduct.

Adopted to meet the needs and circumstances of the journal, as well as the policies of the university and the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, this commitment and compliance are equally reflected and/or indicated in the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the staff.

To maintain high standards of academic rigor, all full-length research manuscripts submitted undergo double-blind peer review. Manuscripts submitted to PJPP are evaluated in terms of relevance, substance, and significance and potential contribution for policy work.

1. 1. The editorial team subjects a new article to an internal preliminary review to determine whether it is fit for external review. Authors are then informed accordingly.
      
      
   2. Articles selected for peer review are sent out to at least two scholars and/or practitioners who have expertise on a particular topic, area, and/or methodology. Each reviewer is given a month to submit the review, subject to any extension as requested.
      
      
   3. The editorial team then vets the reviews to decide whether to accept, reject, or subject to revision an article. In this vetting process, the editorial team weighs the reviewers’ comments, determining their fairness and merit (or otherwise) and supplying additional comments. The goal is to be as thorough as possible to reduce the back-and-forth between editors and authors.
      
      
   4. The authors then revise, and the editors assess to determine if they will accept, reject, or have the manuscript revised further.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to request for revisions without guaranteeing that the revised paper will be automatically accepted. Authors are given at least two attempts at major revisions. If a manuscript does not show significant improvements then, the editorial team may opt to reject it altogether.

In submitting to the Philippine Journal of Public Policy (PJPP), authors must abide by the responsibilities of authors outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics. In particular, authors must:

1. 1. Comply with the definition of, and responsibilities of, authorship from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journals. These include:
      • “Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
      • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
      • Final approval of the version to be published; and
      • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved” (ICMJE n.d.).
        
        
   2. Acknowledge individuals and organizations who have contributed to the writing and research who do not fulfill the criteria for authorship outlined above (ICMJE n.d.).
      
      
   3. Uphold the ethics of research
      
      
   4. Respect the rights of informants and interview subjects, such as anonymity, confidentiality, and consent, especially from vulnerable populations. Such arrangements/commitment must be indicated and/or explained in the manuscript.
      
      
   5. Research involving indigenous peoples of the Philippines must present proof of consent and approval from any of the following: (1) the stakeholders; (2) accredited organization; and (3) the National Council on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Republic of the Philippines.
      
      
   6. Authors should have obtained all necessary ethical approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or review ethics board (REB) from their university or other appropriate authorities, and include such approval/permissions when submitting the manuscript, and disclose the same in the manuscript in the acknowledgments section. If no approval was granted, author/s must acknowledge the lack of an IRB or REB in the acknowledgments or a footnote, with sufficient justification why.
      
      
   7. Declare any funding related to the submitted work, particularly the funding agency and the grant number.
      
      
   8. Include an acknowledgments section that indicates the list of organizations/individuals who helped with the research and/or writing. This is also the space to declare early/other versions of the manuscript, such as theses/dissertations and previously published works.
      
      
   9. Declare financial and other interests, as well as conflict of interest, which defined by the World Association of Medical Editors (2009) as follows: 
      • “Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests….” (World Association of Medical Editors, 2009).
        
        
      • The COPE Asia Pacific Seminar 2011 (Gibbs n.d., slides 10-11) states a “COI exists when an author, reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that [may] inappropriately influence his or her actions (dual commitments, competing interests, competing loyalties).”
        
        
      • For authors, examples of COI include:
        • Financial interest [to be gained directly because of the results/arguments of the study]
        • Personal relationships or beliefs
        • Academic competition: pressure to publish (Gibbs n.d., Slide 15)
          
          
   10. Declare similarities or overlaps with an author’s previous research in the acknowledgment or footnote/s, and explain in the paper itself how a manuscript submitted to UP CIDS substantially differs from any of the author’s previous publication/s. Previously published works by the author/s must be cited.
       
       
   11. Comply with the guidelines of the PJPP:
       
       
       • Follow content and submissions protocols (see below)
       • Ensure thorough and proper citations of all sources, including author’s previous publications, in both direct quotations and paraphrased content
       • Supply titles or captions for figures, images, charts, and provide in-text sources accordingly
       • Obtain permission to use copyrighted content beyond fair use provisions. Author/s can submit this alongside the manuscript, but such permissions can be requested by the editor in chief.
       • Comply with guidelines regarding the use of, and citation of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools such as ChatGPT.
         1. Building on Elsevier’s prescribed guidelines for AI technologies and that of COPE, PJPP requires that authors utilizing such:
            • Disclose their use in the methodology or relevant section of a manuscript, and/or cite them accordingly like any source, with corresponding entries in the bibliography
            • Cite the AI tool even if the generated content is, or can be construed as, common knowledge, even in paraphrased form. If you did not think/write it, cite it.
            • Exclude AI and AI-assisted technologies as authors or co-authors.
            • Exercise due diligence and be critical in using and vetting AI-content, bearing in mind that AI tools are no substitute for meticulous research and analysis.
            • Take full responsibility and accountability for the work, including AI-generated content.
              
              
         2. For changes in authorship or institutional affiliation
            • The author/s’ institutional affiliations are those at the time the research was conducted. If there are changes in affiliation since the research was completed, please let the Editorial Team know so that this can be acknowledged in a footnote. Changes on authorship and contributorship may also be requested, subject to the authorship guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Issues on authorship will be addressed by adopting the guidelines from
              International Committee of Medical Journals (d.).
              
              

Reviewers for the Philippine Journal of Public Policy must abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines for peer reviewers. In particular, they must:

1. 1. Keep the unpublished manuscript and their review in confidence. They must not share it with any third party.
      • This includes not using, adopting, citing, paraphrasing the obtained information/arguments from an unpublished manuscript to his or her own or another person’s advantage, or to disadvantage of others as well.
      • Do not outsource your review to a third-party.
        
        
   2. Disclose to the editors any conflict of interest (COI) or circumstance that may affect, or appear to reveal, the possibility or perception of bias. This includes the fact that they may know the author of a manuscript, or that they subscribe to an opposing framework/argument. For reviewers, examples of COI include (adapting Gibbs n.d., Slide 15)
      • “Financial Interest” [to be gained directly because of the results/arguments of the study, or because of its non-publication]
      • “Personal relationships”
      • “Academic competition: pressure to publish” [or otherwise, i.e. gatekeeping]
        
        

1. 3. Be fair and as thorough as possible, and constructive in their assessment
      • Refrain from imposing and preferring a particular framework or argument on an author.
      • Check any bias for nationality, religious or political beliefs, and others.
        
        
   4. Seek to meet the journal’s review guidelines as indicated in the Peer Reviewer Form.
   5. Report any suspected ethical violations of the author/s to the editor in chief.

The Philippine Journal of Public Policy commits to an ethical publication process as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics. It commits to:

1. 1. Abide by Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing by The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
   2. Communicate with authors and reviewers in a timely and respectful manner,
   3. Facilitate all aspects of the publication process without any unnecessary delay, and explain any delay accordingly.
   4. Help uphold and enforce all aspects of research ethics, and proper citation, and guide authors and reviewers in the same.
   5. Ensure the integrity of the peer review process, including protecting the identities of the authors and reviewers
   6. Disclose, and if applicable, withdraw themselves from, the review process if they have a potential conflict of interest, such as having a financial stake in the publication of an article, that can create a risk, or even perception of bias.

As deemed applicable and consistent with the policies of the University of the Philippines and laws of the Republic of the Philippines, The Philippine Journal of Public Policy adheres to the processes outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning the following cases of misconduct (quoted verbatim):

• • Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data
  • Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly
  • Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media
  • Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
  • Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
  • Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
  • Fabricated data in a published article
  • Image manipulation in a published article
  • Ethical problem in submitted manuscript
  • Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
  • Plagiarism in a published article
  • Systematic manipulation of the publication process
  • Duplicate publication in a submitted manuscript
  • Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process
  • Peer review manipulation suspected after publication
  • How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process

All allegations of misconduct are to be addressed to the editor in chief via [email protected]. The editor in chief will then acknowledge the allegation, proceed to investigate, and take the appropriate steps and decision, informing all concerned parties at key stages of the process.

In line with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, The Philippine Journal of Public Policy will issue a Notice of Retraction in case of the following:

1. 1. Blatant and substantial plagiarism, particularly involving at least multiple paragraphs
   2. Discovery that the paper has been previously published elsewhere in a non-University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS) platform in similarly substantial form. These include but are not limited to:
      1. A shorter version of a longer paper making the same argument both
      2. Substantial overlaps of the arguments of a previous publication and a previous publication without justifying the equally substantial difference(s) between the two.
   3. Concerns over breaches in research ethics and/or the integrity of the data.
   4. Other violations of research ethics, COPE and/or PJPP Guidelines.

For general inquiries or concerns, the author may coordinate with the PJPP Editorial Team by emailing [email protected].

For complaints regarding published PJPP content, these may also be communicated to the above email.

The PJPP Editorial Team, under the guidance of the editor in chief, will investigate such concerns confidentially, in accordance with COPE guidelines (see Allegations of Misconduct section) and within a reasonable timeframe. It may request clarification and/or seek additional information from the concerned parties as part of any investigation, and will update the same at key stages of the process and of the decision.

Should an author want to appeal an editorial decision for their article, they may write a formal appeal addressed to the editor in chief through the same email. It is recommended that the author extensively substantiate their arguments in their letter.

The PJPP editorial team preserves its editorial independence and its adherence to the principle of academic freedom.

1. No fees whatsoever are charged to the authors to have their manuscripts reviewed or published.
   
   
2. The Philippine Journal for Public Policy is managed by personnel of the University of the Philippines, and their work on the publication process is done as part of their duties, for which they receive compensation.
   
   
3. Although the Philippine Journal for Public Policy is open access, printed copies are sold at the UP CIDS office.

By submitting a manuscript, the author/s agree that the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article have been given to the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS), including

1. 1. Depositing the published manuscript in a reputable depository or database
   2. Republishing/including it in another CIDS publication such as a volume of collected works
   3. Promoting it via email, the UP CIDS website, and/or social media (Facebook and Twitter)

Author/s transfer the copyright over their publication to UP CIDS. Author/s may build on their publication to publish a substantially different work in a non-CIDS platform, provided that they cite the CIDS-published article accordingly and declare to the editor/publisher any overlaps and similarities between the CIDS-published article and the derivative work.