Research and Publication Misconduct Evaluation Process (For Reviewers and Readers)
| Post date: 2025/12/15 |
Principles
The journal is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. Allegations of research or publication misconduct are investigated fairly, transparently, and consistently. In line with COPE guidance, cooperation between journals and research institutions is ensured.
Reviewers and readers are informed of these principles so they can trust that concerns are handled responsibly. Confidentiality and fairness are maintained throughout the process.
Scope of Concerns
The journal investigates allegations such as:
Initial Screening
Upon receiving an allegation, the case is logged and confidentially screened. The claim may be judged as:
Formal Investigation
Investigations are conducted by subject editors, overseen by the Editor-in-Chief.
Confidentiality and Independence
Possible Outcomes
Depending on the findings, the journal may take one of the following actions:
Special Cases
Complaints against editors, associate editors, advisory board members, or reviewers are investigated by an independent committee, publisher’s ombudsperson, or external panel to avoid conflicts of interest. Reports are transparent while respecting confidentiality.
Records, Timelines, and Appeals
Practical Checklist for Editors
The journal is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. Allegations of research or publication misconduct are investigated fairly, transparently, and consistently. In line with COPE guidance, cooperation between journals and research institutions is ensured.
Reviewers and readers are informed of these principles so they can trust that concerns are handled responsibly. Confidentiality and fairness are maintained throughout the process.
The journal investigates allegations such as:
- Duplication or redundant publication
- Plagiarism
- Fabricated or falsified data
- Fake authorship or fake reviewers
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Ethical approval problems
- Salami publication (fragmented reporting)
- Complaints against editorial team members or reviewers
Upon receiving an allegation, the case is logged and confidentially screened. The claim may be judged as:
- Clearly without merit
- Requiring full investigation
- More appropriate for the authors’ institution or funder
Investigations are conducted by subject editors, overseen by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Evidence gathering: Manuscript versions, submission metadata, reviewer reports, correspondence, and supporting files (raw data, ethics approvals, authorship declarations) are preserved.
- Preliminary assessment: Similarity checks and expert judgment are used to identify issues.
- Author contact: Corresponding authors are confidentially notified and asked to provide explanations and documentation. Lack of response may lead to referral to the institution.
- Institutional referral: For serious misconduct (fabrication, falsification, ethical breaches), the journal requests the authors’ institution to investigate and report findings.
- Assessment of findings: Reports are reviewed, and independent experts may be consulted for technical interpretation.
- Communications with complainants, authors, reviewers, and institutions remain confidential.
- Whistleblowers are protected when anonymity is requested.
- Editorial decisions remain independent, though institutions may be relied upon for access to raw data or personnel records.
Depending on the findings, the journal may take one of the following actions:
- No further action (concerns resolved)
- Correction or corrigendum (honest errors)
- Retraction (serious proven misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research)
- Expression of concern (serious concerns pending investigation)
- Editorial note or correction of authorship/conflict declarations
Complaints against editors, associate editors, advisory board members, or reviewers are investigated by an independent committee, publisher’s ombudsperson, or external panel to avoid conflicts of interest. Reports are transparent while respecting confidentiality.
- Secure case files are maintained with dates, correspondence, evidence, decisions, and rationale.
- Reasonable timelines are set for each stage; parties are notified if extensions are needed.
- Authors and complainants may submit clarifications or appeals. Legitimate new evidence will be considered in reviewing prior decisions.
- Log allegations and parties involved
- Conduct confidential initial screening and document decisions
- Preserve all relevant files and metadata
- Notify corresponding authors with clear, evidence-based concerns
- Refer to institutions when raw data or personnel inquiry is required
- Use independent experts for technical interpretation
- Protect complainant confidentiality and prevent retaliation
- Choose corrective action consistent with severity and COPE principles
- Publish clear notices when appropriate
- Maintain secure records and ensure fair opportunities to respond
View: 47 Time(s) | Print: 7 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
