About the Journal

Aims and Scope

The Competency-Based Education Research Journal is an online publication that advances knowledge of competency-based education through (a) rigorously conducted empirical investigations, and (b) theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature.  

Peer Review Process

The Competency-Based Education Research Journal employs a masked peer review process with at least two referees evaluating each manuscript submitted. Manuscripts will be reviewed for the significance and substantiation of the inquiry, the quality of the methodology and argument, and the clarity of writing. The goal is to review and respond to submissions within six weeks. 

Reviewer Guidelines

  1. Clear Description of CBE Program Models
  • Are program models and design features sufficiently described?
  • Has the context of the program and research been sufficiently indicated to support a wider interpretation of the findings?
  • Has the author used the Parsons et al. (2023) framework to ensure consistency in reporting the CBE program(s)?
  1. Theoretical Frameworks & Field Development
  • Has the research in the introduction used established theoretical frameworks or adequate information and rationale for developing a new theoretical framework?
  1. Ethical & Methodological Considerations
  • Does the author(s) use unbiased language (APA, 2020).
  • Does the author adhere to ethical principles (AERA, 2011).
  • Have the research questions, models, and frameworks been clearly indicated?
  • Have the methods and results been reported according to social science traditions?
  • Does the methodology used align with the claims made/suggested in the research questions?
  • Have appropriate methodologies for cause-and-effect inquiries been utilized?
  1. Sharing Research & Practical Application
  • Has the paper been written for use by diverse audiences and references provided for foundational definitions of CBE?
  • Is there a narrative in the discussion section that is relevant to practitioners and policymakers?
  • Is there a narrative in the discussion section to indicate how the research contributes to informed decision-making in practice?

References

American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2011). The Code of Ethics of the American Educational Research Association. Professional Ethics

American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.; electronic edition). https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition

Parsons, K., Mayer, K.M., Hatcher, M., Caton, K. & Young, A. (2023). Postsecondary competency-based education program model map: Framework. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/CBE-Program-Model-Map-Framework.pdf

Publication Frequency

The Competency-Based Education Research Journal will be published continuously.

Open Access Policy

The Competency-Based Education Research Journal will utilize the Creative Commons licensing protocols for open access content at the Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) level, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon work non-commercially, and although all new works must acknowledge the original source and be non-commercial, they do not have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

Publication Ethics Statement

This journal follows best practices for publishing and follows the Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing, including those outlined in the Publication ethics and related editorial policies, Peer Review and Advertising sections in the Principles.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

To preserve the integrity, originality, and scholarly value of publications in Competency-Based Education Research Journal (CBERJ) and comply with ethical codes of research and publication, this policy sets forth guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools by authors, reviewers, and editors. This policy document indicates expectations involving the use, disclosure, and communication of AI.

The following principles drive the bases for the policy:

  1. Proper Authorship
  2. Ethics in research and publication
  3. Originality of work
  4. Privacy
  5. Copyright terms
  6. Preservation of journal content

Definitions

  • AI tools / Generative AI: Software or systems (e.g. large or small language models, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, among others) that can generate text, code, data, analyses, images, animation, or predictions in response to prompts.
  • Semantic analysis: Use of tools to analyze meaning, relationships, patterns in text or other data.
  • Coding / programming: Writing or using computer code as part of data collection, data processing, statistical analysis, or methodological tools.
  • Simulation: A simulation is a model that mimics a situation or system by producing data used as evidence for decision-making in the testing of different scenarios or process changes. Practically, theoretical models are operationalized and produce data for use in data-driven research and development.

For Authors

  1. Authorship
    • Authors are responsible for the accuracy of any information in their publications.
    • Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, among others) cannot be credited as authors under any circumstances. AI tools cannot meet requirements for authorship, because they cannot take responsibility for submitted work, cannot assert the presence/absence of conflicts of interest, and cannot manage copyright agreements.
  2. Authenticity of Research & Data Collection
    • Authors must conduct real, original data collection, or use datasets acquired with proper permissions. Fabrication and falsification of data via AI tools is prohibited.
    • Simulations should include, but not limited to, the software and hardware platforms used, the simulation algorithm, any pre-processing of inputs, parameter settings required to reproduce the data from the simulations, the number of iterations, and all post-processing steps. (see Rahmandad, Hazhir, and John D. Sterman. “Reporting Guidelines for Simulation-based Research in Social Sciences.” System Dynamics Review 28.4 (2012): 396–411  for more details)
    • AI may assist in data cleaning or analysis only if methods are transparently described (tool, version, parameters) and results are reliable.
    • Authors must verify all AI generated content, including citations, summaries, and code.
  3. Writing & Manuscript Preparation
    • AI tools may not be used to write substantial parts of the manuscript, such as abstracts, introduction, literature review, methods description, results, discussion, or conclusions. These must be the original scholarly work of the authors.
    • Minor assistance is allowed: grammar correction, spelling, translation, formatting, readability. Authors are fully responsible for reviewing, editing, and verifying any content revised by such tools.
    • If authors use AI for drafting, editing, coding, summarizing, or literature searching, they must:
      • Disclose the use in the Methods section (or Introduction for literature review assistance).
      • Cite the tool appropriately.
  4. Coding & Semantic Analysis
    • Use of AI-based software for semantic analysis is permitted, provided the process is clearly documented. Authors must explain how the semantic analysis was done, what tools were used, how validity was assessed, and ensure the interpretations are fully their own.
    • Any code used for analysis (AI-based or not) must be under the authors’ control, transparent, reproducible, and cited appropriately if external tools/packages are employed.
  5. Authorship & Attribution
    • AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.
    • All authors must take responsibility for the content, including any portion influenced by AI assistance.
  6. Disclosure Requirement
    • If any AI tools were used (for grammar, translation, semantic analysis, data processing, etc.), the authors must disclose:
      • The name(s) and version(s) of the tool(s).
      • The purpose(s) for which each tool was used.
      • The extent or proportion of the work influenced.
    • Disclosure should appear in a distinct section (e.g. “AI Tools and Methods” or “Disclosure of AI Use”) or in the Methods / Acknowledgments section, and also in the cover letter at submission.
  1. Data Retention
    • Authors Should Retain AI Prompts and Outputs that include the following:
      • Prompts used
      • AI outputs
      • Iterations
    • Editors may request these during review.
  2. Prohibited Practices
    • Submitting manuscripts that are predominantly or entirely generated by AI in lieu of authors’ own original work.
    • Using AI to generate false or fabricated citations, references, or data.
    • Misrepresenting the contribution of AI tools (e.g. claiming human authorship of AI-generated text).

For Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality
    • Reviewers shall not share any manuscript or parts thereof with AI tools that require uploading content to external platforms, unless explicitly authorized and secure, to protect confidentiality of authors and the unpublished work.
  2. Prohibited Uses of AI
    • Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate substantive portions of their review (evaluation of methodology, intellectual merit, critique). Critical reasoning and judgment must be their own.
    • Reviewers shall not substitute their own evaluation by relying on AI to do major analytic or evaluative functions.
  3. Permitted Uses
    • Reviewers may use AI tools for language polishing their reports (e.g. grammar, style) after having written their own review content.
    • Reviewers may consult AI-based tools to check facts, references, or to clarify technical content, but responsibility for accuracy lies with the reviewer.
  4. Disclosure
    • If a reviewer uses AI tools even for permitted assistance, those uses must be disclosed to the editorial office.

For Editors

  1. Editorial Decision & Evaluation
    • Editors must not use AI tools to make decisions about manuscript acceptance, rejection, or about intellectual merit of submissions. All substantive editorial judgements must be from human editors.
    • Editors also must not use AI to write decision letters, summary evaluations, or to produce content that substitutes for their own judgment without oversight.
  2. Enforcement of Policy
    • Editors are responsible for ensuring that authors and reviewers comply with this policy.
    • If suspicion arises that a submitted work violates the policy (e.g. undisclosed AI use, fabricated content, etc.), editors must investigate.
  3. Transparency
    • Editors shall provide clear statements of this policy in the journal’s Instructions to Authors and Reviewer Guidelines.
    • Any changes to the policy should be announced publicly.

Enforcement & Consequences

  • Detection & Investigation: If during or after review, AI misuse is suspected (e.g. through similarity tools, reviewer/editor inspection), the editorial team may request clarifications from authors or reviewers.
  • Sanctions: Depending on severity, consequences may include rejection of the manuscript, correction, retraction of published paper, banning of authors from future submissions, or notifying institutional authorities.
  • Reviewer / Editor Misconduct: Reviewers who breach policy (e.g. uploading manuscripts to external AI platforms without authorization; using AI to do more than permitted) may be removed from the reviewer pool. Editors who violate policy may be asked to step aside or other remedial actions will be taken. This may include banning of reviewers from their editorial board, suspension of future submissions, or notifying institutional authorities.
  • Due Process: Editors should make statement of issue with evidence and recommended course of action to author for a response. Then, editor provides statement and author's response to Board of Directors for evaluation and decision on course of action. If needed or requested by author, a virtual meeting is held to discuss the issue. After discussion and consideration of all statements and evidence, the Board of Directors make a decision of a course of action.

This policy was informed by: