Allegations of Research Misconduct

1. General Principles

Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen dan Pendidikan (JIMPIAN) is committed to maintaining research integrity, publication ethics, and the reliability of the scholarly record. The journal takes allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles them fairly, objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with established publication ethics standards.

This policy is guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, COPE guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals, and relevant recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), where applicable.

An allegation of research misconduct is a report or concern that research or publication practices may have violated accepted standards of research integrity. An allegation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred. All cases must be assessed on the basis of available evidence, the nature and seriousness of the concern, and the responses provided by the parties involved.

This policy applies to allegations concerning submitted manuscripts, manuscripts under review, accepted manuscripts, published articles, authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the journal's publication process.

2. Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct and publication ethics violations may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Data fabrication: Inventing data, observations, research participants, or experimental results and presenting them as genuine.
2. Data falsification: Manipulating research materials, methods, data, images, or results in ways that misrepresent the research findings.
3. Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, data, or work without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution.
4. Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure, justification, or appropriate acknowledgment of the previous publication.
5. Simultaneous submission: Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time without complying with the respective journals' submission requirements.
6. Authorship misconduct: Inappropriate attribution or omission of authorship, including guest, gift, or ghost authorship, as well as false statements about authorship contributions.
7. Image or visual-material manipulation: Inappropriately altering, duplicating, or misrepresenting images, figures, photographs, or other visual evidence.
8. Research ethics violations: Conducting or reporting research in violation of applicable ethical requirements, including failures involving informed consent, research participant protection, or required ethical approval.
9. Citation manipulation: Inappropriately coercing or manipulating citations to inflate citation counts or influence journal metrics.
10. Peer-review manipulation: Fabricating reviewer identities, manipulating reviewer recommendations, interfering with the peer-review process, or engaging in other deceptive practices intended to compromise editorial assessment.
11. Undisclosed competing interests: Failing to disclose interests or relationships that could materially influence the research, its interpretation, or the publication process.
12. Misrepresentation involving artificial intelligence (AI): Using AI tools in ways that violate the journal's AI policy, including fabricating research evidence, misrepresenting the origin or verification of research content, or concealing material AI use where disclosure is required.
13. Other serious breaches of research or publication ethics: Conduct that compromises the accuracy, originality, transparency, accountability, or reliability of the research or scholarly record.

The classification and seriousness of an alleged violation will depend on the specific circumstances and available evidence. Honest errors, methodological disagreements, and differences in interpretation do not automatically constitute research misconduct.

3. Reporting Allegations

Any individual may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the Editor of JIMPIAN. Potential sources include authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutional representatives, and other parties with relevant information.

Reports should be submitted through the journal's official communication channels and should include, where available:

1. The title and bibliographic details of the manuscript or published article.
2. A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
3. Supporting evidence, such as relevant publications, documents, data, correspondence, or similarity reports.
4. Information identifying the specific passages, data, images, procedures, or statements of concern.
5. The reporter's contact information, if they are willing to provide it.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The absence of the reporter's identity will not automatically invalidate an allegation.

JIMPIAN will not treat an allegation as established merely because it has been submitted. Reports that lack sufficient information may require clarification or further supporting evidence before additional action can be taken.

4. Initial Assessment and Investigation

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's remit and whether the available information warrants further examination.

The initial assessment may include:

1. Reviewing the allegation and the supporting evidence.
2. Examining the manuscript, relevant publication records, research materials, or editorial correspondence, as appropriate.
3. Checking for possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data inconsistencies, image irregularities, authorship concerns, or other relevant issues.
4. Consulting an independent subject specialist or research integrity expert when necessary.
5. Determining whether the matter can be addressed through the journal's editorial procedures or should be referred to the relevant research institution, employer, or other competent authority.

The journal will follow relevant COPE flowcharts or equivalent guidance when handling specific cases, such as suspected plagiarism, fabricated data, duplicate publication, or authorship disputes.

JIMPIAN's editorial assessment is intended to determine the appropriate action concerning the manuscript or published article. The journal does not ordinarily replace the formal investigative role of an author's institution in determining whether serious research misconduct has occurred.

5. Communication with Authors and Other Parties

Where an allegation concerns a submitted, accepted, or published manuscript, the Editor will normally contact the corresponding author and, where appropriate, other relevant authors to explain the concern and request a response.

Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation, supporting documentation, corrected information, or other relevant evidence. The Editor may request original data, research instruments, ethics approval documentation, consent records, contribution statements, or other materials necessary to assess the concern, where applicable.

The Editor may also contact reviewers, institutions, research integrity offices, funding bodies, publishers, or other relevant parties when justified by the circumstances.

All communications will be conducted professionally and without prejudging the outcome. Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct, but the Editor may proceed with an appropriate decision when sufficient evidence is available.

6. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

JIMPIAN will handle allegations as confidentially as reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a proper assessment, institutional cooperation, applicable law, and the protection of the scholarly record.

Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations that have a legitimate role in assessing or resolving the matter. The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the identity of reporters and other parties where appropriate, while recognizing that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance.

The journal will avoid public statements that present unproven allegations as established facts. Authors and other individuals concerned will be treated fairly and given an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Confidentiality will not prevent the journal from taking necessary action to protect readers, research participants, the publication process, or the integrity of the scholarly record.

7. Cooperation with Research Institutions

When an allegation involves serious suspected research misconduct, the Editor may refer the matter to the relevant author's institution, employer, research integrity office, funding body, or other competent authority.

Referral may be appropriate when the case involves suspected fabrication or falsification of data, serious ethical violations, unresolved concerns about research materials, or matters requiring access to evidence and investigative powers beyond the journal's remit.

When making a referral, JIMPIAN will provide relevant information and supporting evidence, subject to applicable confidentiality and legal requirements. The journal may request information about the outcome of an institutional investigation when necessary to determine the appropriate editorial action.

JIMPIAN will consider findings from competent institutional investigations and will cooperate with relevant authorities where appropriate. However, editorial decisions concerning the publication or correction of scholarly content remain the responsibility of the journal.

If an institution does not respond or a formal investigation cannot be completed, the Editor may take further action based on the available evidence and relevant publication ethics guidance.

8. Editorial Actions and Possible Outcomes

The action taken by JIMPIAN will depend on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the strength of the evidence, the manuscript's publication status, and the responses received.

Possible outcomes include:

1. No further action: When the allegation is not supported by sufficient evidence or the concern has been satisfactorily resolved.
2. Request for clarification or correction: When additional information or a limited correction is sufficient to resolve the issue.
3. Rejection of a submitted manuscript: When serious ethical or scholarly concerns are established before publication and cannot be adequately resolved.
4. Withdrawal of an accepted manuscript: When substantial ethical or scholarly problems are identified before publication and the manuscript cannot appropriately proceed.
5. Correction of a published article: When an error or omission can be corrected without requiring retraction of the article.
6. Expression of concern: When there are serious unresolved concerns about the reliability or integrity of a published article and further investigation is necessary.
7. Retraction of a published article: When sufficient evidence indicates that the article is seriously unreliable, contains major research or publication misconduct, or otherwise meets the journal's retraction criteria.
8. Referral to an institution or competent authority: When the matter requires formal investigation or action beyond the journal's editorial remit.
9. Other proportionate editorial measures: When necessary to protect the integrity of the publication process and consistent with the journal's published policies.

The journal will distinguish between allegations, preliminary concerns, and established findings. It will not impose a predetermined sanction solely because an allegation has been made.

9. Allegations Involving Published Articles

When an allegation concerns an article already published by JIMPIAN, the Editor will assess whether the issue affects the article's accuracy, reliability, attribution, ethical status, or contribution to the scholarly record.

Where appropriate, the journal may issue a correction, publish an expression of concern, or retract the article in accordance with its Article Retraction Policy and relevant COPE guidance.

A retraction will be considered when there is sufficient evidence that the article's findings or conclusions are unreliable, or when other serious circumstances warrant retraction under accepted publication ethics standards.

The original article will normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record and will be clearly identified as retracted, unless exceptional legal or safety circumstances require removal. Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice will be linked to the relevant article and will explain the reason for the editorial action as clearly as appropriate.

The journal may also communicate relevant outcomes to indexing and abstracting services or other parties when necessary to ensure that the status of the article is accurately reflected.

10. Allegations Involving Reviewers or Editors

Allegations concerning reviewers or editorial personnel will be handled with the same commitment to fairness, confidentiality, and evidence-based assessment.

Examples include plagiarism of unpublished manuscripts, disclosure or misuse of confidential information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of peer review, discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, and other serious breaches of editorial responsibilities.

Where an allegation concerns an editor directly involved in the case, the journal will seek an independent assessment by another authorized editor or an appropriate independent party. The individual whose conduct is questioned should not be solely responsible for determining the outcome of the allegation against themselves.

If the matter requires institutional or publisher-level investigation, JIMPIAN may refer it to the relevant authority.

11. Appeals and Further Information

Authors or other directly affected parties may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe that an editorial action concerning an allegation of misconduct was based on a material factual error, overlooked relevant evidence, or failed to follow the journal's stated procedures.

Appeals must include a clear explanation and relevant supporting documentation. The Editor or an independent authorized representative will review the appeal, as appropriate. An appeal will not automatically suspend necessary measures to protect the scholarly record.

JIMPIAN may also seek independent advice on complex cases. The journal will make reasonable efforts to communicate the outcome to the relevant parties, subject to confidentiality requirements and the information that may lawfully be disclosed.

12. Prevention and Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research and manuscripts comply with applicable research integrity standards, ethical requirements, authorship criteria, citation practices, and the journal's publication policies.

Authors should retain appropriate research records and supporting materials and provide relevant documentation when reasonably requested during an editorial assessment.

Authors are also expected to disclose relevant competing interests, report material errors promptly, cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries, and correct the scholarly record when necessary.

JIMPIAN encourages all authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold transparency, accountability, and responsible research practices.

13. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This policy should be read together with JIMPIAN's Publication Ethics, Authorship Criteria, Plagiarism Policy, AI Policy, Peer Review Policy, Manuscript Withdrawal Policy, and Article Retraction Policy.

JIMPIAN will apply these policies consistently and in accordance with relevant COPE guidance and other applicable standards of publication ethics.