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.
• Publicly accessible online/discussion-platform content where individuals or institutions could reasonably be identified, or where contextual expectations of privacy may exist.
• 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 and no identifiable or potentially identifiable human data are involved (e.g., purely synthetic/simulated data; fully public non-personal datasets). Publicly accessible online content is not automatically exempt from ethical review or reporting. If in doubt, authors should consult their institutional review board/ethics committee (or equivalent) and explain the basis for their approach in the manuscript.

Terminology. Anonymous means the researcher cannot reasonably identify a participant from the data collected. Anonymised means identifying elements were removed after collection. Pseudonymised means identifiers were replaced but re-linkage remains possible; such data should still be treated as personal data for ethics and data protection purposes. If IP addresses, student IDs, LMS logins, linkage keys, or similar identifiers are retained, the data are usually not truly anonymous.

2) What must be reported (minimum requirements)

2.1 Ethics review, approval, exemption, or no-review-required basis

• If reviewed/approved: name of the ethics committee / IRB / REC (or equivalent), host institution, and country.
• Approval/reference number (or protocol ID) and date, where applicable.
• If formal exemption or waiver was granted: the name of the authorised body granting the exemption/waiver, the basis/reason, and any reference number/date, where applicable.
• If formal review was not required under the applicable institutional/national rules: a short explanation of why review was not required, and what safeguards were used instead.

2.2 Informed consent / assent to participate

• Who consented (e.g., adult participants; parents/guardians; teachers; school leaders), and who assented (e.g., children or other participants who could not legally provide full consent, where applicable).
• How consent/assent was obtained (written/oral; online form; opt-in/opt-out, if legally and ethically justified).
• How voluntariness was protected (e.g., no penalty for declining; separation from grading/evaluation; no coercive role of teachers or supervisors).
• Whether any incentive, course credit, or other benefit was offered, and how undue influence was avoided.
• Withdrawal arrangements: whether participants could withdraw, until what stage, and any practical limits (e.g., once a fully anonymous questionnaire is submitted, an individual response may no longer be retrievable).

Clarification: Adult university students normally provide informed consent, not assent. Assent is relevant where participants lack full legal capacity to consent.

2.3 Consent for publication of identifiable material (if applicable)

• If quotations, screenshots, photographs, video stills, audio clips, case details, or other materials could reasonably identify a person or institution, authors must state whether separate consent for publication was obtained.
• Authors should explain how identifiability risk was assessed and what de-identification steps were taken.
• Where identifiable material is published, participants should be informed that the material may be accessible online after publication.
• If there is reasonable doubt that anonymity can be maintained, authors should obtain explicit publication consent or omit the material.

2.4 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.
• Whether the data were anonymous, anonymised, or pseudonymised, and what this meant in practice.
• Anonymisation/pseudonymisation steps (what was removed/aggregated; key-coding approach; whether verbatim quotations were paraphrased where needed to reduce searchability).
• 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).

2.5 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, “administrative” datasets, and online platform data

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

• Data provenance (system/source; time window; who extracted the data; under what authority/permission).
• Legal/organisational basis for access (e.g., data governance approval; ethics approval; exemption/waiver; or no-review-required 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).
• For publicly accessible online content: why the use was ethically justified, what the contextual expectations of privacy were, and whether verbatim quotation could make individuals searchable or re-identifiable.

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. If personal, confidential, or institutionally restricted data were uploaded to a third-party AI service, authors must also disclose the legal/contractual/security basis for doing so and the human verification steps used before outputs informed the research record.

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. Do not include committee names, institutions, or other identifying details in the anonymised manuscript if they could compromise blind review.
• 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, exemption/waiver notices, 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, Country], approval/reference no. [ID], dated [YYYY-MM-DD].

Ethics statement: The study was exempt from formal ethics review / ethics review was waived by [authorised body, Institution, Country], reference no. [ID if available], dated [YYYY-MM-DD if available], because [reason]. Safeguards included [consent/information provided], [data minimisation], [anonymisation/pseudonymisation], and [restricted access/storage/retention].

Ethics statement: Under the applicable institutional/national procedures, formal ethics review was not required for this type of study because [reason]. Safeguards included [consent/information provided], [data minimisation], [anonymisation/pseudonymisation], and [restricted access/storage/retention].

Ethics statement: This study involved adult university students completing an anonymous, minimal-risk questionnaire. Under the applicable institutional/national procedures, formal ethics review was not required for this type of study. Before participation, students were informed about the study purpose, the voluntary nature of participation, the absence of any effect on grades or evaluation, how the data would be used, and whom to contact with questions. Completion/submission of the questionnaire indicated informed consent. No direct identifiers were collected, and the data were analysed and reported only in anonymised or aggregate form.

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.

Publication consent: Separate consent for publication was obtained for [quotations/screenshots/images/video stills/case details] that could reasonably identify participants or institutions. Participants were informed that the material may be accessible online after publication. Identifying details were minimised, and publication was limited to material necessary for scholarly reporting.

Data protection: We collected [types of data]. Direct identifiers were not collected / were removed. The dataset was [anonymous/anonymised/pseudonymised]. Data were 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.

Ethics statement: The study analysed [discussion posts/forum entries/platform traces] from [source/platform]. Although the material was publicly accessible / institutionally accessible, the researchers treated it as human-related data. We assessed the contextual expectations of privacy, avoided collecting unnecessary identifiers, and reported only de-identified, paraphrased, or aggregate material where needed to reduce searchability and re-identification risk.

Generative AI disclosure: [Tool(s)] were used for [writing/editing/transcription/translation/coding/analysis/figures]. Outputs were verified by [procedure]. [No personal/confidential data were uploaded to third-party AI services / Personal or confidential data were uploaded on the following legal/contractual/security basis: ...]. 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 in Scholarly Publishing
• BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fifth edition (2024)
• BERA Research Ethics Case Studies (2024)
• AERA Code of Ethics (2011)
• AoIR Internet Research Ethics guidance (including IRE 3.0)
• ICMJE: Protection of Research Participants
• EU GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)
• EDPB study on safeguards under GDPR Article 89(1) for scientific research