1) When is an ethics statement required?

An ethics statement is required whenever a study involves (a) human participants or (b) human-related/personal data, including (but not limited to):

• Surveys, tests, interviews, observations, focus groups, classroom recordings.
• School/university records, grades, attendance, demographic variables, or administrative datasets.
• Learning analytics: LMS/VLE activity logs, clickstream, programming submissions, IDE telemetry, platform traces, forum posts.
• Any dataset that contains, or could reasonably be linked to, an identifiable person (even if pseudonymised).

“Ethics: Not applicable” is acceptable only when no human participants or identifiable/potentially identifiable human data are involved (e.g., purely synthetic/simulated data; fully public non-personal datasets). If in doubt, authors should consult their institutional review board/ethics committee (or equivalent) and explain the basis for their approach in the manuscript.

2) What must be reported (minimum requirements)

2.1 Ethics review / approval (or exemption rationale)

• Name of the ethics committee / IRB / REC (or equivalent), and the host institution.
• Approval/reference number (or protocol ID) and date, where applicable.
• If formal review was not required: a short explanation of why, and what safeguards were used instead.

2.2 Informed consent / assent

• Who consented (e.g., adult participants; parents/guardians; teachers; school leaders), and who assented (children/students where applicable).
• How consent/assent was obtained (written/oral; online form; opt-in/opt-out, if legally/ethically justified).
• How voluntariness was protected (e.g., no penalty for declining; withdrawal option; separation from grading/evaluation).

2.3 Privacy, confidentiality, and data protection

• What data were collected/recorded (e.g., audio, video, screen capture, logs, student records).
• What identifiers were collected (direct or indirect), and how they were minimised.
• Anonymisation/pseudonymisation steps (what was removed/aggregated; key-coding approach).
• Storage and access controls (who had access; where stored; retention period).
• Data sharing statement (available / restricted / not available) with rationale (e.g., privacy/consent/legal constraints).

2.4 Additional transparency for instruments and prompts

When the study uses instruments or prompts, authors should provide either:

• the full instrument/protocol (appendix / repository), or
• a sufficiently detailed description to allow review (items, tasks, rubrics, prompts, examples).

If instruments include copyrighted materials, authors must describe permissions/licensing and avoid reproducing protected content without permission.

3) Additional safeguards for minors and school settings

When research involves children/minors and/or occurs in school settings, the ethics statement must also report:

• Parental/guardian consent and child assent procedures (as appropriate for age/capacity).
• Gatekeeping risk mitigation: how recruitment avoided coercion (e.g., teacher authority; classroom pressure).
• Group settings (focus groups, group interviews): how confidentiality limits were explained to participants.
• Presence of teachers/staff during data collection (if applicable) and implications for disclosure/pressure.
• Safeguarding: any protocols for handling distress, disclosure of harm, or mandatory reporting duties (where applicable).

Note: Permission from a school authority (e.g., principal, inspectorate, district) is important but does not automatically substitute for independent research ethics review where such review is required by the researchers’ institution, funder, or applicable governance framework.

4) Learning analytics, institutional data, and “administrative” datasets

Studies that use institutional/school system data (even without direct participant contact) must describe:

• Data provenance (system/source; time window; who extracted the data; under what authority/permission).
• Legal/organizational basis for access (e.g., data governance approval; ethics approval or exemption rationale).
• Risk of re-identification and mitigation (aggregation thresholds; suppression rules; minimal variables; pseudonymisation).
• Whether participants were informed (when applicable) and whether opt-out/objection mechanisms existed (if relevant).

5) Language-of-data and translation integrity (if applicable)

If instruments/interviews/transcripts or quoted excerpts were translated, authors must report:

• Language(s) of data collection and of publication.
• Who performed translation (role/qualifications) and what was translated (full transcript vs excerpts).
• Quality checks (second reviewer, back-translation, spot checks, consensus procedures).
• Whether AI tools were used for transcription/translation and how outputs were verified.

6) Generative AI / AI-assisted tools disclosure (mandatory)

Authors must disclose any use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools, distinguishing clearly between:

• AI used as part of the educational intervention/tool under study (what learners used; under what conditions); and
• AI used in the research workflow (writing/editing; coding; analysis; transcription; translation; figure generation).

Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy, originality, citation integrity, and confidentiality. AI tools cannot be listed as authors.

7) Where to place ethics/disclosure information (blind review workflow)

• At initial submission (blind review): include required declarations (ethics statement, COI, funding, data/materials availability, AI disclosure) in the Title Page / cover letter that is not sent to reviewers.
• After acceptance (final version): include the ethics statement and required disclosures in the manuscript for publication.

8) What editors may request (confidentially)

To assess ethical compliance, INFEDU may request (confidentially): ethics approval letters, consent/assent templates, data management documentation, and/or evidence of data governance permissions. Sensitive documents should not be uploaded into public repositories unless required and legally permissible.

9) Suggested template wording (authors adapt to their context)

Ethics approval: The study was reviewed and approved by [Committee/IRB/REC name, Institution], approval/reference no. [ID], dated [YYYY-MM-DD].

Ethics statement: Formal ethics review was not required because [reason]. Safeguards included [consent/information provided], [data minimisation], [pseudonymisation/anonymisation], and [restricted access/storage/retention].

Consent/assent: Written informed consent was obtained from parents/guardians, and age-appropriate assent was obtained from student participants. Participation was voluntary and not linked to grading; students could withdraw at any time without penalty.

Data protection: We collected [types of data]. Direct identifiers were not collected / were removed. Data were pseudonymised and stored on [secure location] with access limited to [roles]. Data will be retained for [duration] and then deleted/anonymised. Data sharing: [available/restricted/not available] due to [privacy/consent/legal] constraints.

Generative AI disclosure: [Tool(s)] were used for [writing/editing/transcription/translation/coding/analysis/figures]. Outputs were verified by [procedure]. The authors take full responsibility for the content.

10) Reference frameworks (non-exhaustive)

• INFEDU Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
• INFEDU Ethical Guidelines for Authors
• INFEDU Instructions for Authors
• COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME: Principles of Transparency & Best Practice
• BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2018)
• AERA Code of Ethics (2011)
• EU GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)
• EDPB study on safeguards under GDPR Article 89(1) for scientific research