EconMind League
1 Honest reasoning and evidence#
Academic exchange depends on a faithful account of the work actually done. State the question, assumptions, method, evidence and limitations clearly enough for others to assess the claim. Distinguish an observation from an inference, a modelled result from real world evidence, and a preliminary idea from a supported conclusion. Disagreement, negative findings and acknowledged error are legitimate parts of research.
2 Authorship and attribution#
Submit your own work or identify the contributors and permission that allow a joint submission. Agree author order and contribution statements with coauthors before publication. Leadership, technical support, funding or hosting alone does not automatically confer authorship or copyright ownership. Credit relevant support accurately without implying endorsement.
Cite quotations, data, code, images, methods and other sources in an appropriate form. Do not plagiarise, conceal a substantial contribution, invent a reference or use a citation that does not support the associated claim. A source being online or labelled educational does not remove its copyright or licence conditions. Record permissions for third party material where needed.
3 Data and methods#
Do not fabricate or deceptively alter data, model inputs, outputs, analysis, authorship, dates or participation records. Explain exclusions, transformations and material limitations. Do not conceal an error that materially changes a result. Preserve enough lawful working evidence to support review, without collecting or distributing unnecessary personal information.
Reproducibility is encouraged within lawful access, security, confidentiality and intellectual property limits. It does not require releasing restricted source code, credentials, unpublished proprietary materials or identifiable participant data. An approved methods description or de-identified example may be appropriate instead. Do not claim an analysis is independently replicated or peer reviewed unless that actually occurred.
4 AI and other assistance#
AI assistance is generally allowed for ordinary learning and teaching, subject to the task’s stated limits, honest attribution and verification of the resulting work. Research Library submissions must disclose material assistance where relevant to authorship, method or interpretation. Follow the assistance rules stated for the activity. Disclose material AI assistance or external assistance when it affects authorship, analysis, code, translation or the argument in a way relevant to assessment. Authors remain responsible for checking facts, citations, calculations, originality and permission. Do not list an AI system as a human author or invent evidence that it performed.
Do not send another person's private submissions, unpublished code, personal information or confidential research material to an external AI service without the authority, safeguards and permissions required for that disclosure. These standards do not imply that EconMind League operates an AI answer service or an automatic AI detector.
5 Research involving people#
Participation in platform learning is not blanket consent to being a research subject. Before a survey, interview, experiment or study involving identifiable people, the organiser must establish the applicable ethics requirements, lawful data basis, understandable notice, voluntary participation and any required consent, guardian arrangements or institutional review. Do not claim institutional ethics approval that has not been obtained.
An author must not make participation in a study, a financial contribution or unnecessary disclosure of personal information a condition of unrelated access. Apply particular care to minors and unequal power relationships. De-identification must be assessed realistically; removing a name does not necessarily prevent identification from a school, role or small group.
6 Research Library#
Authors or their lawful rights holders retain copyright in Research Library papers and reports. EconMind League hosts or links to work under the relevant permission or other lawful basis; editorial acceptance does not transfer ownership. Readers must follow the work's own licence and applicable law. A download link is not a blanket licence to republish or sell the work.
Authors should disclose coauthors, third party restrictions, conflicts of interest and material funding relationships. Clearly label preprints, student research, working papers and other publication status as applicable. Hosting is not a guarantee of accuracy, school approval, peer review or professional endorsement.
Formatting, accessibility and metadata corrections should preserve meaning and attribution. Substantive changes to findings, argument, title, author list or conclusions require consultation and the authorisation required from the relevant authors or rights holders. Where agreement is unavailable, a separate editorial note, restriction or removal may be appropriate; do not silently rewrite an author's claim.
An author may request removal of a Research Library work’s full text after proportionate verification of identity, authorship and authority. A valid request must be implemented within a reasonable period, with any necessary coauthor, publisher or mandatory-law limitation explained. Necessary title, author, original publication date and withdrawal or correction metadata may be retained only on a lawful basis, with personal information minimised. Full-text withdrawal is not governed by the continuity rules for core software licences.
The platform may independently restrict or remove a work for a credible serious academic, rights or safety issue. Temporary protection does not itself establish misconduct. Before a final adverse academic finding, provide the author an explanation and an opportunity to respond and seek review, except to the extent an urgent measure or legal restriction requires otherwise.
7 Organised academic activities#
Where a particular academic activity has published collaboration, submission or assessment conditions, follow them. Do not impersonate a participant, manipulate records, collude to bypass stated conditions or exploit unauthorised access. A rule must be made clear before it is applied; do not retrospectively invent an assessment condition to punish an unexpected result.
Each formal competition within the scope of these policies must state its permitted and prohibited AI assistance before the relevant participation or submission begins, including any disclosure requirements and how breaches will be assessed. A general reference to integrity is not a substitute for activity-specific AI conditions. Do not retrospectively impose an unpublished AI prohibition; apply any independent, already applicable rule against deception or plagiarism on its own evidence.
8 Corrections and review#
Report a material error or integrity concern to admin@econmind.group or an available support form. Include specific evidence and distinguish suspicion from an established fact. A preliminary concern should be reviewed fairly and confidentially as far as practicable, with proportionate access to relevant records and an opportunity for affected people to respond.
Responses may include clarification, corrected attribution, a linked correction, an expression of concern, removal or retraction, or an appropriate access restriction. Preserve an intelligible correction history where lawful without unnecessarily repeating personal or infringing information. Consider the evidence and intention carefully; an honest mistake is different from deliberate deception.
Material decisions should state reasons and a reconsideration route. Conflicted reviewers should step aside where practicable. No participant should face retaliation for a good faith correction or report. Internal review does not restrict a person's statutory rights, lawful disclosures or access to a competent authority.