Research Misconduct

The journal responds to integrity concerns through documented evidence assessment rather than ad hoc punishment. The objective is to protect participants, authors, reviewers, readers, and the reliability of the scholarly record.

What constitutes research or publication misconduct

• Fabrication: making up data, participants, observations, quotations, documents, or results and reporting them as real.
• Falsification: manipulating research materials, processes, images, data, analysis, or records so that the research is misrepresented.
• Plagiarism: unattributed appropriation of words, ideas, data, images, or other intellectual material.
• Authorship misconduct: guest, gift, ghost, purchased, coerced, or otherwise deceptive authorship and undisclosed writing services.
• Duplicate/simultaneous publication: submitting or publishing materially the same work in more than one venue without transparent justification.
• Citation manipulation: coercive, excessive, fabricated, or strategically arranged citation intended to distort metrics rather than support scholarship.
• Peer-review manipulation: false reviewer identities, compromised reviewer accounts, undisclosed reviewer conflicts, fabricated reports, or interference with independent review.
• Ethics violations: lack of required approval/consent, privacy violations, improper handling of sensitive data, or other serious departures from applicable research-ethics standards.
• AI-related deception: undisclosed or irresponsible AI use that fabricates sources, evidence, participants, results, or conceals the true provenance of substantive scholarly work.

Allegation-handling procedure

1. Receipt and documentation. The journal records the allegation and preserves relevant files, correspondence, metadata, and review history.
2. Preliminary assessment. An editor without a conflict evaluates whether the allegation is specific, plausible, and within the journal's remit.
3. Conflict check and evidence preservation. Individuals with conflicts are excluded and relevant evidence is secured.
4. Clarification. The person(s) concerned are normally informed of the substance of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless doing so would compromise a legitimate investigation.
5. Investigation/referral. The journal assesses publication-related evidence and may refer matters requiring institutional authority to the relevant university, employer, funder, ethics committee, or competent body.
6. Decision. Findings distinguish honest error, questionable practice, and misconduct based on available evidence.
7. Corrective action. Depending on stage and severity, actions may include revision, rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, correction, expression of concern, retraction, reviewer removal, or institutional notification.
8. Record keeping and appeal. Decisions and evidence are documented. Affected parties may use the journal's complaints and appeals process where applicable.

Confidentiality and fairness

Allegations are handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. The journal does not publicly label an individual as having committed misconduct before a fair process has been completed. Anonymous complaints may be considered when they provide specific, verifiable evidence. Retaliation against good-faith complainants is not acceptable.

Governance basis: Permendiktisaintek No. 9 of 2026; Directorate General of Science and Technology Decision No. 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026; COPE Core Practices; and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (Version 5, 2026).