The Canadian Journal of Career Development (CJCD) is committed to upholding rigorous ethical standards throughout the manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, and publication process. In keeping with established practices across academic publishing, the journal is guided by the Government of Canada's Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021)[i] and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)[ii] in articulating and applying its ethical standards.

Promotion of Research Integrity

Researchers shall strive to follow the best research practices honestly, accountably, openly and fairly in the search for and in the dissemination of knowledge. In addition, researchers shall follow the requirements of applicable institutional policies and professional or disciplinary standards and shall comply with applicable laws and regulations. At a minimum, researchers are responsible for the following:

• •  Rigour: Scholarly and scientific rigour in proposing and performing research; in recording, analyzing, and interpreting data; and in reporting and publishing data and findings.
• •  Record keeping: Keeping complete and accurate records of data, methodologies and findings, including graphs and images, in accordance with the applicable funding agreement, institutional policies, laws, regulations, and professional or disciplinary standards in a manner that will allow verification or replication of the work by others.
• •  Accurate referencing: Referencing and, where applicable, obtaining permission for the use of all published and unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies, findings, graphs and images.
• •  Authorship: Including as authors, with their consent, all those and only those who have made a substantial contribution to, and who accept responsibility for, the contents of the publication or document. The substantial contribution may be conceptual or material.
• •  Acknowledgement: Acknowledging appropriately all those and only those who have contributed to research, including funders and sponsors.
• •  Conflict of interest management: Appropriately identifying and addressing any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the Institution’s policy on conflict of interest in research, in order to ensure that the objectives of the RCR Framework (Article 1.3) are met.

Breach of Research Integrity

A determination that an individual has not met research-integrity expectations may be informed by the following list of instances of non-compliance with the research integrity framework:

• •  Fabrication: Making up data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images.
• •  Falsification: Manipulating, changing, or omitting data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, without appropriate acknowledgement, such that the research record is not accurately represented.
• •  Destruction of research data or records: The destruction of one’s own or another’s research data or records or in contravention of the applicable funding agreement, institutional policy and/or laws, regulations and professional or disciplinary standards. This also includes the destruction of data or records to avoid the detection of wrongdoing.
• •  Plagiarism: Presenting and using another’s published or unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, as one’s own, without appropriate referencing and, if required, without permission.
• •  Redundant publication or self-plagiarism: The re-publication of one’s own previously published work or part thereof, including data, in any language, without adequate acknowledgment of the source, or justification.
• •  Invalid authorship: Inaccurate attribution of authorship, including attribution of authorship to persons other than those who have made a substantial contribution to, and who accept responsibility for, the contents, of a publication or document.
• •  Inadequate acknowledgement: Failure to appropriately recognize contributors.
• •  Mismanagement of Conflict of Interest: Failure to appropriately identify and address any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the Institution’s policy on conflict of interest in research, preventing one or more of the objectives of the RCR Framework (Article 1.3) from being met.

By submitting a manuscript to the CJCD for consideration, all authors agree to comply with the ethical guidelines outlined above. CJCD reserves the right to address instances of non-compliance through appropriate measures, which may include withdrawing acceptance of a manuscript, retracting a published article, issuing a correction notice, or referring the matter to the appropriate authority at an author's institution or relevant professional association. 

Complaints and Appeals

CJCD is committed to handling complaints, appeals, and concerns about published content fairly, consistently, and confidentially, where appropriate.  Matters will be investigated in accordance with relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance and the journal’s editorial policies.

Complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing and should include, where applicable:

• •  The manuscript or published article title and submission or DOI number.
• •  The relevant dates and editorial decisions.
• •  A clear description of the concern or grounds for appeal.
• •  Supporting documentation or evidence.
• •  The outcome or remedy being requested.

Correspondence with the editors must remain civil and respectful. CJCD will not tolerate threatening, abusive, discriminatory, or harassing communications. Such communications may be closed without further consideration, result in the author being banned from further submissions to CJCD, and serious threats will be referred to the appropriate authorities.

General concerns or complaints 

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties may raise concerns about:

• •  The journal’s editorial or peer-review processes.
• •  Possible breaches of publication or research ethics.
• •  Conflicts of interest.
• •  Concerns about the accuracy, integrity, or presentation of published work.
• •  The conduct of authors, reviewers, or editors.

Concerns should be sent to cjcd@mun.ca. The editorial team will acknowledge the complaint and determine the appropriate course of action. Where a complaint concerns the Chief Editor or another editor involved in the matter, the complaint will be referred to an appropriate independent member of the journal’s editorial or governing board.

Investigations will be conducted as confidentially as practicable. CJCD may consult the editorial team, advisory board, external experts, authors’ institutions, or other relevant external parties where necessary. The journal will communicate the outcome to the complainant where appropriate, while respecting privacy and confidentiality obligations.

Appeals of editorial decisions

Our Editors have broad discretion to determine whether a submission is suitable for the journal, including its scope, originality, significance, quality, and priority. A decision to decline a submission without external review because it is outside the journal’s scope or does not meet editorial criteria is not eligible for appeal.

An author may appeal a decision made post review when they can identify a:

• •  Procedural error or departure from the journal’s stated process.
• •  Factual or interpretive error in the editorial or reviewer assessment.
• •  Conflict of interest or other factor that may have affected the decision.
• •  Substantive issue that was not adequately considered.

Disagreement with the reviewers’ scholarly opinion, without evidence of a material error or procedural problem, is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

An appeal must be submitted within 30 days of the decision and include a detailed, point-by-point response to the editorial and reviewer comments. The appeal should explain clearly why the decision should be reconsidered and identify any supporting evidence.

The Chief Editor or Associate Editor will assess the appeal and review the relevant editorial and peer-review records. If required, the appeal will be considered by someone who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome may be to uphold the decision, invite reconsideration, or take another appropriate action. An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed. Decisions based on the journal’s editorial priorities or assessment of suitability may remain final.

Post-publication Concerns and Corrective Action

When a concern is raised about a published article, CJCD will assess the matter in accordance with applicable COPE guidance and its policies on corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions.

Depending on the findings, one of the following actions will be taken to protect the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record:

• •  Take no further action.
• •  Request additional information from the authors or their institutions.
• •  Publish a correction or clarification.
• •  Publish an editorial expression of concern.
• •  Retract or withdraw the article.

The editorial team will contact the affected authors and provide an opportunity to respond before corrective action is taken, where practicable and appropriate. However, they may take interim or urgent action when necessary to protect readers or the integrity of the academic record.

Authors may appeal a post-publication decision only when they can provide new, relevant evidence or identify a procedural error. Appeals must be submitted within the deadline specified in the journal’s correspondence.

Appeals will be reviewed by the editorial team and, where appropriate, the advisory board, external academic advisers, or other independent experts. The journal’s final decision regarding a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is final.

[i] Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021) guidelines from the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research:  Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021)

[ii] Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) Welcome to COPE