Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

Description 

Jurnal Fisika Unand receives and evaluates concerns about research and publication misconduct in submitted, accepted, and published work. This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, Editorial Board members, and journal staff. 

Misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deceptive image or data manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, authorship manipulation, peer-review manipulation, misuse of confidential material, and retaliation against a person who raises a concern in good faith. Honest error and legitimate differences of scientific interpretation are not, by themselves, misconduct. 

Policy 

1. JFU will assess every sufficiently specific allegation, regardless of the complainant’s identity or the manner in which the concern is received. Anonymous allegations will be considered when they contain verifiable evidence. 

2. Allegations will be handled fairly, confidentially, promptly, and without presuming misconduct before the evidence has been assessed. 

3. An editor or staff member with an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must recuse themselves. The Editor-in-Chief will appoint a non-conflicted case editor. Allegations concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be handled by an independent senior editor or a publisher-appointed officer who has not been involved in the matter. 

4. JFU is responsible for editorial decisions and the integrity of the published record. Employers, universities, ethics committees, funders, and regulators remain responsible for formal investigations within their authority. 

5. Information will be disclosed only to people or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary for assessment, investigation, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record. 

6. Good-faith complainants, respondents, witnesses, editors, and reviewers must not be subjected to retaliation through the journal’s processes. 

7. Possible outcomes include no further action, a request for clarification or underlying records, manuscript rejection, reviewer or editor removal, revision of an editorial decision, notification of an institution, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal in exceptional circumstances.

8. Records of allegations, evidence, correspondence, decisions, recusals, and publication actions will be retained securely for at least five years after closure, subject to applicable institutional and legal requirements. 

Technical Operational Steps 

1. The Journal Office records the date received, complainant details when available, manuscript or article identifier, allegation, supporting evidence, and any immediate risk to participants or readers. 

2. The Editor-in-Chief appoints a non-conflicted case editor. If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal Office refers it to an independent publisher-appointed officer. 

3. The case editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation is specific, relevant to JFU, and supported by evidence that can be evaluated. Relevant submission files, correspondence, reviewer activity, and system logs are preserved. 

4. If the concern is credible, the respondent receives a neutral description of the allegation and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The identity of a complainant is not disclosed unless necessary and lawful. 

5. The journal may request original data, unprocessed images, laboratory or instrument records, ethics approvals, contribution statements, funding records, permissions, or reviewer-identification information. 

6. When institutional investigation is needed, the Editor-in-Chief contacts the appropriate research-integrity office and states the information required. JFU may pause editorial action while protecting readers through an expression of concern when warranted. 

7. The case editor prepares a documented recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief, or the independent deciding officer, determines the editorial outcome on the basis of the available evidence and reliability of the record.

8. The respondent and complainant are informed of the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality, privacy, and institutional processes. 

9. Any correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal is implemented under the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Discussion Policy. 

10. A closed case may be reopened when substantial new evidence emerges or a material procedural error is demonstrated.