Research Misconduct

FUADUNA • PUBLICATION ETHICS

Research Misconduct

How FUADUNA identifies, assesses, and responds to allegations affecting the integrity of submitted or published work.

COPE-AlignedConfidential ReviewPre & Post Publication

FUADUNA takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously whether they arise before or after publication. The journal seeks to protect the integrity of the scholarly record while ensuring fair, confidential, and evidence-based handling of allegations.

 

What Constitutes Misconduct?

  • Fabrication: making up data, sources, participants, quotations, results, or evidence.
  • Falsification: manipulating research materials, processes, images, data, or citations in a misleading way.
  • Plagiarism: using another person's words, ideas, structure, translation, or work without appropriate attribution.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication: publishing substantially the same work more than once without transparent justification and permission.
  • Simultaneous submission: submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
  • Citation manipulation: adding unnecessary citations to inflate citations of particular authors, articles, journals, or groups.
  • Authorship manipulation: gift, guest, ghost, purchased, or otherwise misleading authorship.
  • Peer-review manipulation: false reviewer identities, fabricated reviews, coercive reviewing, or attempts to compromise reviewer independence.
  • Undisclosed conflicts or unethical research: concealing material competing interests or violating applicable ethics/consent requirements.
 

How Allegations Are Handled

  1. Receipt and documentation: the editor records the allegation and preserves relevant evidence.
  2. Initial assessment: the editor determines whether the concern is specific, credible, and within the journal's remit.
  3. Author response: where appropriate, the corresponding author and relevant co-authors are invited to provide an explanation and supporting documentation.
  4. Independent assessment: editors may seek advice from reviewers, research-integrity experts, the publisher, or relevant institutions while managing conflicts of interest.
  5. Institutional referral: where fact-finding requires access to research records or authority beyond the journal, the matter may be referred to the author's institution, funder, ethics body, or other competent authority.
  6. Editorial action: depending on the evidence and publication stage, action may include rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate notice.
  7. Record preservation: post-publication notices remain linked to the article and DOI to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.
 

Principles of Investigation

  • Allegations are handled confidentially and shared only with people who need the information for assessment or investigation.
  • The journal does not treat anonymous or whistleblower reports as automatically invalid; evidence is assessed on its merits.
  • Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must recuse themselves.
  • The journal distinguishes honest error from intentional or reckless misconduct where the available evidence permits.
  • The journal may follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and cooperate with competent institutions when appropriate.
Reporting a concern

A concern should identify the article or manuscript, describe the suspected problem clearly, and provide supporting evidence where available. Allegations should be submitted to the journal's official editorial contact rather than to individual reviewers.

Policy note. This page should be read together with FUADUNA's Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Copyright and Licensing, and other applicable editorial policies. Where a conflict arises, the most recently approved journal policy applies.