Allegation of research misconduct

ALLEGATION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

1. Definition of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct refers to significant breaches of ethical standards and academic integrity in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. It includes, but is not limited to:
  • Fabrication: Making up data, results, or research findings and reporting them as factual.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or altering/omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the publication record.
  • Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, text, or figures without giving appropriate credit or attribution.
  • Self-Plagiarism / Text Recycling: Reusing substantial, verbatim portions of one's own previously published work without proper attribution or justification.
  • Duplicate or Redundant Submission: Submitting the same manuscript (or substantially similar work) to multiple journals simultaneously.
  • Authorship Misconduct: Misrepresenting contributions (e.g., guest, gift, or ghost authorship, or adding authors without consent).
  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to declare financial, commercial, or personal interests that could influence or bias the research outcomes or interpretations.
  • Breach of Human/Animal Ethical Approval: Conducting research involving human subjects or animals without appropriate clearance from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee.
Note: Research misconduct does not include honest error or genuine differences of opinion or interpretation.
2. Reporting an Allegation
The journal welcomes allegations or concerns raised by authors, peer reviewers, readers, institutional whistleblowers, or the public.
  • Whistleblower Protection: Allegations submitted in good faith will be handled with strict confidentiality to protect the identity of the complainant and the respondent.
  • How to Report: Reports must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Office with detailed evidence (e.g., side-by-side text comparisons, raw data anomalies, or documentation proving duplicate submission).
  • Anonymous Allegations: Anonymous complaints will only be investigated if supported by clear, verifiable, and sufficient evidence.
3. Investigation Process
The journal follows standard guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling allegations:
  1. Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the validity of the allegation and whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists.
  2. Inquiry & Request for Clarification: The journal contacts the corresponding author to request an explanation, raw data, or supporting documentation within a specified timeframe (typically 14–30 days).
  3. Institutional Involvement: If the response is unsatisfactory or indicates systemic misconduct, the journal may escalate the matter to the author's home institution, university ethics committee, or funding body for a formal investigation.
  4. Independent Expert Review: The journal may appoint an independent ad-hoc committee or expert reviewers to examine the evidence and raw data.
4. Remedial Actions and Sanctions
If research misconduct is proven, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, reserves the right to impose one or more of the following actions based on the severity of the offense:
  • Rejection of Manuscript: Immediate rejection of the manuscript if still under review.
  • Corrigendum / Addendum: Publication of a formal correction notice if errors are minor and unintentional.
  • Expression of Concern: Issuance of an official Expression of Concern while an institutional investigation is ongoing.
  • Retraction: Formal retraction of the published article if the findings are invalid, fabricated, or plagiarized.
  • Temporary or Permanent Ban: Suspension or prohibition of the offending author(s) from submitting future manuscripts to the journal.
  • Institutional Notification: Formal report sent to the author’s institutional leaders, department heads, or funding agencies regarding the misconduct finding.