Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research Misconduct Policy

The Journal of Progressive Innovation Library Service (JPILS) is committed to maintaining research integrity, transparency, and credibility in scholarly publishing. All allegations of research misconduct are taken seriously and handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with applicable publication ethics principles and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to JPILS and articles already published in the journal.

A. Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes actions that compromise the integrity, reliability, or originality of research and scholarly publications in JPILS. Such misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

  1. Fabrication: Inventing research data, results, or findings that do not exist and reporting them as genuine.
  2. Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, or data, including selectively altering or omitting results to misrepresent the actual research.
  3. Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, text, data, images, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment or citation.
  4. Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research findings without appropriate disclosure or justification.
  5. Authorship Misconduct: Inappropriately adding, removing, or changing authorship, including ghost authorship, guest authorship, and gift authorship.
  6. Data and Image Manipulation: Improperly altering or presenting research data, graphs, images, or other evidence in a misleading manner.
  7. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests that could improperly influence the research or its evaluation.
  8. Peer-Review Manipulation: Interfering with or manipulating the peer-review process, including providing false reviewer identities or attempting to improperly influence editorial decisions.
  9. Research Ethics Violations: Conducting research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data without required ethical approval, informed consent, or appropriate safeguards.
  10. Misleading Declarations: Providing false or materially inaccurate information concerning funding, ethical approval, data availability, authorship, or other research-related declarations.

For articles reporting community engagement activities, misconduct may also include fabricating participant numbers, falsely reporting program implementation, manipulating evaluation results, or misrepresenting the contributions of community partners.

Honest errors, legitimate differences in scholarly interpretation, and reasonable methodological disagreements do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Each allegation will be assessed based on the available evidence and circumstances.

B. Reporting Allegations

Anyone with reasonable grounds to suspect research misconduct in a manuscript submitted to JPILS or an article published by the journal may report the concern to the editorial team.

Reports should include as much relevant information as possible, such as:

  1. The title of the manuscript or published article.
  2. The name(s) of the author(s), where known.
  3. A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
  4. Supporting evidence, documents, data, or relevant references.

JPILS encourages reports made in good faith and does not tolerate deliberate attempts to make false or malicious allegations against authors, reviewers, editors, or other researchers.

C. Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed editorial representative will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's remit and whether sufficient information is available to justify further investigation.

The assessment may include reviewing the submitted manuscript or published article, research data, similarity reports, images, citations, author declarations, and other relevant evidence.

If the allegation falls outside the journal's authority or the available information is insufficient, JPILS may request additional clarification or conclude the assessment with an appropriate explanation.

D. Investigation Procedure

When further examination is necessary, JPILS will assess the allegation fairly and impartially.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the investigation may include:

  1. Reviewing the allegation and all available supporting evidence.
  2. Requesting explanations, clarifications, or relevant documentation from the corresponding author or other involved parties.
  3. Consulting independent experts, reviewers, or representatives of relevant institutions where necessary.
  4. Evaluating the responses and evidence objectively while allowing the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain their position.
  5. Contacting the relevant research institution, funding organization, or other appropriate authority when a formal investigation beyond the journal's remit is required.
  6. Making an editorial decision based on the available evidence and applicable publication ethics standards.

The journal's investigation is intended to determine appropriate editorial action. It does not replace a formal investigation by a competent institution or authority when such an investigation is necessary.

E. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Allegations will be handled confidentially to the extent possible and consistent with a fair investigation. Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations that need it to assess or resolve the matter, subject to applicable legal and ethical obligations.

JPILS will seek to protect the rights and reputations of both the complainant and the person or persons accused of misconduct. An allegation will not be treated as proof of misconduct, and adverse conclusions will not be reached without an adequate assessment of the available evidence.

The journal does not permit retaliation against individuals who raise concerns honestly and in good faith or who cooperate with an investigation.

F. Editorial Actions and Outcomes

Depending on the nature, severity, and findings of the investigation, JPILS may take one or more of the following actions:

  1. Request corrections, clarifications, additional data, or supporting documentation.
  2. Reject a manuscript when serious concerns remain unresolved or misconduct is established.
  3. Publish a correction or corrigendum when a published article requires amendment.
  4. Publish an Expression of Concern when a significant issue remains under investigation or the available evidence is inconclusive.
  5. Retract a published article when the findings warrant retraction under the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy.
  6. Notify the relevant institution, funding organization, publisher, or appropriate authority when necessary.
  7. Consider proportionate additional editorial measures, including restrictions on future submissions, where justified by established misconduct and consistent with journal policy.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the findings and intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will be handled in accordance with JPILS's relevant editorial and publication ethics policies.

G. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

1. Authors

Authors must ensure that their work is reported accurately, that sources are appropriately cited, that data and findings are presented honestly, and that all required declarations concerning ethics, funding, authorship, and conflicts of interest are complete and accurate.

2. Reviewers

Reviewers should promptly report credible concerns regarding plagiarism, data integrity, research ethics, or other possible misconduct to the editor. Reviewers must not conduct unauthorized investigations or disclose confidential information obtained through peer review.

3. Editors

Editors must assess allegations objectively, manage conflicts of interest, maintain appropriate confidentiality, and take reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the publication process.

H. Appeals and Further Information

Individuals who disagree with an editorial decision resulting from the handling of an allegation may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial team, accompanied by relevant evidence or clarification.

Appeals will be reviewed by an editor or appropriately appointed person who has no direct conflict of interest in the matter. JPILS may seek independent advice when necessary.

Unresolved matters may be referred to the relevant research institution or another appropriate authority when a formal investigation is warranted.

I. Policy and Ethical Framework

JPILS handles allegations of research misconduct in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Through this policy, JPILS seeks to promote responsible research practices, protect the integrity of scholarly publications, and maintain the confidence of authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and the wider academic community.

Journal: Journal of Progressive Innovation Library Service (JPILS)

Publisher: Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram, Indonesia

Official Website: https://journal.ummat.ac.id/index.php/JPILS/index