Allegations of Research Misconduct

JESS | PUBLICATION ETHICS AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Allegations of Research Misconduct

 

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science) is committed to protecting the integrity, credibility, and reliability of scholarly research. The journal recognizes its responsibility to respond appropriately to allegations of research and publication misconduct involving manuscripts under consideration or articles already published. All concerns should be assessed fairly, objectively, confidentially where appropriate, and in accordance with recognized principles of research integrity and publication ethics.

PRINCIPLES FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS

Fair Assessment: Allegations must be evaluated on the basis of available evidence.
Presumption of Fairness: An allegation does not establish that misconduct has occurred.
Opportunity to Respond: Individuals concerned should have an appropriate opportunity to provide clarification.
Confidentiality: Information must be disclosed only when reasonably necessary and appropriately authorized.
Accountability: Editorial action should be proportionate to the evidence and the potential impact on the scholarly record.

1. Purpose and Scope of the Policy

This policy establishes a framework for receiving, assessing, responding to, and resolving allegations of research or publication misconduct brought to the attention of JESS.

The policy applies to manuscripts submitted for editorial evaluation, manuscripts undergoing peer review, accepted manuscripts awaiting publication, and articles already published by the journal.

It covers allegations involving authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, and other individuals whose actions may affect the integrity of the journal's publication processes.

The journal's editorial responsibility is to protect the integrity of submitted and published scholarly content. Formal investigations of research conduct that require institutional authority, access to original research records, or disciplinary powers may need to be undertaken by the relevant research institutions or competent authorities.

2. Definition and Categories of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct encompasses practices that seriously undermine the honesty, accuracy, transparency, or integrity of research and scholarly publication. The following categories describe concerns that may require editorial assessment.

2.1. Fabrication of Research Data

Inventing data, research participants, interviews, field observations, institutional documents, research results, or other evidence and presenting them as authentic.

2.2. Falsification of Research Findings

Manipulating research materials, analytical procedures, datasets, images, or findings in ways that misrepresent the research actually conducted.

2.3. Plagiarism

Presenting another person's ideas, language, research findings, data, images, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

2.4. Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Republishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment of the original publication.

2.5. Authorship Misrepresentation

Inappropriately including or excluding authors, misrepresenting scholarly contributions, or changing authorship without legitimate agreement or justification.

2.6. Peer Review Manipulation

Providing false reviewer identities, submitting fraudulent review reports, improperly influencing reviewers, or interfering with independent editorial assessment.

2.7. Citation Manipulation

Artificially influencing citation practices through coercive, irrelevant, deceptive, or systematically inappropriate citation requests.

2.8. Research Ethics Violations

Serious failures relating to informed consent, participant protection, research permissions, privacy, confidential information, or other applicable ethical requirements.

2.9. Misrepresentation of AI-Generated Materials

Presenting AI-generated interviews, fabricated references, simulated respondents, synthetic observations, or invented findings as genuine empirical research evidence.

The identification of a concern does not automatically establish misconduct. Honest errors, methodological disagreements, differences in scholarly interpretation, and deliberate deception must be distinguished through appropriate assessment.

3. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

JESS encourages individuals who identify credible concerns about research integrity or publication practices to report them to the editorial office.

Allegations may be submitted by readers, researchers, reviewers, authors, institutions, or other parties possessing relevant information.

A report should provide, where available:

  1. The title of the manuscript or published article concerned;
  2. The names of the authors, journal volume, issue, or DOI where relevant;
  3. A clear description of the suspected research or publication problem;
  4. Specific passages, figures, tables, references, or research materials involved;
  5. Available documentation or evidence supporting the concern;
  6. Any relevant previous correspondence or attempted clarification;
  7. Contact information, if the reporting individual is willing to provide it.

Reports should be factual, specific, and based on reasonably available evidence. Individuals are encouraged to avoid unsupported personal accusations or the public disclosure of confidential research information.

Official Reporting Channel

Research integrity concerns may be reported to the JESS Editorial Office through:

journaljessfis@gmail.com

4. Anonymous Reports and Whistleblower Protection

JESS recognizes that individuals reporting suspected misconduct may have legitimate concerns about confidentiality, professional relationships, or possible retaliation.

Anonymous reports should not be dismissed solely because the identity of the reporting individual is unknown. The editorial team should assess whether the information provided is sufficiently specific and supported by evidence to warrant further examination.

The identity of individuals reporting concerns should be protected to the extent reasonably possible under applicable law, institutional procedures, and legitimate requirements of a fair assessment. Absolute anonymity or confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance.

Individuals who report concerns in good faith should not face inappropriate retaliation through the journal's editorial processes. At the same time, allegations must be assessed impartially, and the rights of individuals subject to complaints must be respected.

Deliberately fabricated, malicious, or knowingly misleading allegations may themselves raise ethical concerns and should be handled according to the available evidence and applicable procedures.

5. Procedures for Handling Allegations

JESS seeks to follow a structured, evidence-based approach when allegations of research misconduct are brought to the attention of the journal.

STAGE 01

Receipt and Documentation

The editorial office receives the allegation, identifies the manuscript or publication concerned, and records the information and available supporting materials. Receipt of the complaint may be acknowledged through an appropriate communication channel.

STAGE 02

Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The responsible editor determines whether the concern relates to research integrity, publication ethics, an honest error, a scholarly disagreement, or another editorial matter. Additional information may be requested when the allegation is unclear or insufficiently supported.

STAGE 03

Evidence Review

The editorial team examines relevant documents, research reports, manuscript history, references, review records, and other legitimately available information. Independent expert advice may be sought where technical assessment is required.

STAGE 04

Author or Individual Response

The individual or individuals concerned are informed of the relevant issues and invited to provide a response, explanation, or appropriate supporting documentation. Communications should distinguish clearly between suspected concerns and established findings.

STAGE 05

Institutional Referral When Necessary

Where a formal research misconduct investigation is required, the editorial team may communicate its concerns and supporting information to the relevant research institution or competent authority, subject to confidentiality and applicable legal requirements.

STAGE 06

Evaluation of Findings

The editorial team considers the available evidence, the responses received, relevant expert assessments, and any institutional findings. The evaluation focuses on the reliability of the research and the integrity of the publication record.

STAGE 07

Editorial Resolution and Documentation

An appropriate editorial action is determined and documented. Relevant parties are informed to the extent permitted by confidentiality requirements. Where necessary, the journal issues a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another justified notice.

6. Allegations Involving Submitted Manuscripts

Allegations involving manuscripts that have not yet been published should be assessed before an editorial decision is finalized whenever the concerns could materially affect the manuscript's reliability or publication eligibility.

Depending on the nature of the concern, the editorial team may:

  • Request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors;
  • Review relevant manuscript history and research materials;
  • Seek an independent methodological or disciplinary assessment;
  • Temporarily suspend manuscript processing;
  • Request correction of verified errors or incomplete declarations;
  • Refer credible serious allegations to the relevant institution;
  • Reject the manuscript where significant grounds for rejection are established.

A manuscript should not be rejected solely because an unsubstantiated allegation has been received. At the same time, editors should not use rejection as a substitute for addressing serious research integrity concerns that require further action.

Where an allegation is resolved satisfactorily and the manuscript remains suitable for publication, the editorial process may continue in accordance with the journal's normal review procedures.

7. Allegations Involving Published Articles

Concerns relating to articles already published in JESS require particular attention because they may affect the reliability of the scholarly record and the information used by other researchers.

When credible concerns arise, the editorial team should assess the relevant evidence, seek clarification from the authors, and determine whether additional expert evaluation or institutional investigation is necessary.

Potential editorial outcomes include:

7.1. No Further Action

Where the available evidence does not support the allegation and no correction is required, the journal may close the editorial assessment while maintaining an appropriate record.

7.2. Correction

A correction may be issued when a material error requires public clarification but the principal research findings remain sufficiently reliable.

7.3. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when serious and credible doubts remain unresolved and readers need to be informed of potential problems affecting an article's reliability.

7.4. Retraction

Retraction may be necessary when sufficiently established problems render the article's principal findings unreliable or otherwise meet the applicable criteria for retraction.

Any post-publication notice should accurately identify the affected article, explain the editorial action, and remain accessible and appropriately linked to the published record.

8. Cooperation with Research Institutions

JESS recognizes that research institutions often possess the authority, records, and investigative resources necessary to determine whether serious research misconduct has occurred.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact an author's institution, research integrity office, funding organization, or other competent authority to request clarification or refer credible concerns.

Cooperation may involve:

  • Providing relevant documentary evidence available to the journal;
  • Requesting an institutional assessment of serious allegations;
  • Obtaining clarification about research data or ethical approvals;
  • Communicating concerns about the reliability of published findings;
  • Considering relevant findings of institutional investigations;
  • Coordinating appropriate action concerning the scholarly record.

Institutional findings should be considered carefully, but editors retain responsibility for deciding whether the journal's published record requires correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial action.

Communications with institutions must respect relevant confidentiality, privacy, procedural fairness, and legal requirements.

9. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, authenticity, ethical conduct, and integrity of the research submitted to JESS.

When concerns about their work are raised, authors are expected to:

  • Respond honestly and professionally to legitimate editorial inquiries;
  • Provide clarification concerning research procedures and findings;
  • Supply relevant supporting documentation where reasonably available and permitted;
  • Protect original records from inappropriate alteration or destruction;
  • Inform co-authors of material allegations affecting the manuscript;
  • Disclose relevant circumstances concerning research ethics and data integrity;
  • Cooperate with appropriate institutional investigations;
  • Assist in correcting the published record where necessary.

Authors are not required to disclose confidential or personal data in violation of applicable law or ethical obligations. When legitimate restrictions prevent direct disclosure, appropriate alternative verification arrangements may be considered.

10. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers have a responsibility to communicate credible research integrity concerns identified during manuscript assessment.

Reviewers who suspect misconduct should inform the handling editor through confidential editorial channels and provide a factual explanation supported by available evidence. Reviewers should not make public accusations, independently contact authors, or conduct unauthorized investigations.

Editors must distinguish scientific criticism from allegations of misconduct and should obtain appropriate clarification before making serious judgments.

Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from the assessment of an allegation. The concern should be assigned to another appropriately qualified and independent individual.

If an allegation directly involves the Editor-in-Chief or another person responsible for the journal's ordinary complaints process, the matter should be referred to an appropriately authorized independent representative within the journal's institutional governance arrangements.

11. Evidence, Documentation, and Confidentiality

Responsible handling of research misconduct allegations requires reliable documentation and appropriate safeguards for the information involved.

Relevant materials may include:

  • Submitted and revised manuscript versions;
  • Editorial correspondence and peer-review records;
  • Relevant research methodology and analytical documentation;
  • Original research materials or appropriately verified records;
  • Similarity reports and bibliographic comparisons;
  • Relevant ethics approval or consent documentation;
  • Written explanations provided by the parties concerned;
  • Expert assessments and institutional findings.

Evidence should be handled in a manner that preserves its integrity, provenance, and confidentiality. Access should be limited to authorized individuals with a legitimate role in the assessment.

Automated similarity reports, AI-content detection scores, or isolated statistical anomalies should not be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct without appropriate contextual examination.

Records relating to allegations and editorial responses should be maintained in accordance with applicable institutional information-management, confidentiality, and data-protection requirements.

12. Editorial Decisions and Possible Outcomes

The response to an allegation should depend on the evidence available, the seriousness of the concern, its implications for research reliability, and the outcome of any relevant institutional assessment.

Assessment OutcomePossible Editorial Response
Insufficient Evidence Request clarification or close the assessment without a misconduct finding.
Honest Error Request manuscript revision or issue a correction when justified.
Unresolved Serious Concern Seek independent assessment, refer the matter to an institution, or consider an expression of concern for published work.
Established Serious Publication Problem Reject an unpublished manuscript or take justified corrective action concerning a published article.
Unreliable Published Findings Consider retraction or another appropriate notice under applicable retraction guidance.

These examples are not automatic sanctions. Editorial measures must be proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent with applicable publication ethics policies.

13. Appeals and Requests for Reconsideration

Individuals affected by an editorial decision relating to an allegation of misconduct may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration through the journal's official communication channels.

An appeal should identify:

  • The relevant manuscript or published article;
  • The editorial decision being challenged;
  • The specific factual or procedural grounds for reconsideration;
  • Any new evidence or material clarification;
  • Relevant supporting documentation.

Requests for reconsideration should be reviewed fairly and, where appropriate, by an individual who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary correction or guarantee reversal of an editorial decision. The journal should consider whether new information materially changes the evidence or the justification for the action taken.

14. Timeliness, Communication, and Procedural Fairness

JESS recognizes that allegations of research misconduct should be addressed without unnecessary delay while allowing sufficient time for fair examination of complex or technically demanding concerns.

The duration of an assessment may depend on the completeness of the available evidence, the need for expert consultation, the responsiveness of relevant parties, and any institutional investigation.

The editorial office should provide appropriate updates to directly involved parties when feasible and consistent with confidentiality requirements. Such communication need not disclose privileged information or unverified allegations.

Where an institutional investigation remains ongoing, the journal should consider whether the uncertainty creates a material risk to the published record and whether interim editorial action is warranted.

No fixed investigation deadline is established by this statement. Any formal time limits should be determined through the journal's approved procedures and communicated consistently.

15. Commitment to Research Integrity

JESS recognizes that scholarly publishing depends on trust in the authenticity, reliability, ethical conduct, and transparent reporting of research.

The journal is committed to treating legitimate concerns seriously, maintaining procedural fairness, respecting the responsibilities of research institutions, and taking appropriate editorial action when the reliability of the scholarly record is at risk.

The purpose of this policy is to protect scientific knowledge, support responsible scholarly communication, and ensure that allegations are evaluated through fair and evidence-based procedures rather than unsupported accusations or assumptions.

16. Supporting Standards and Related Policies

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
COPE Core Practices: Allegations of Misconduct.
COPE Core Practices

COPE Council (2024).
Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases.
COPE Cooperation Guidelines

COPE Council (2023).
Fabricated Data in a Submitted Manuscript: COPE Flowchart.
COPE Submitted Manuscript Flowchart

COPE Council (2023).
Fabricated Data in a Published Article: COPE Flowchart.
COPE Published Article Flowchart

Report a Research Integrity Concern

Questions or reports concerning suspected research misconduct should be directed to the JESS Editorial Office using the journal's official communication channels.

JESS Editorial Office

Faculty of Social Science
Universitas Negeri Padang
Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, Air Tawar
Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Email:
journaljessfis@gmail.com

Telephone:
+62 852-6363-9233

Contact the Editorial Office →

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science)

Published by the Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia

Print ISSN: 2622-0741 | Electronic ISSN: 2550-0147