Allegations Of Research Misconduct

Justicia Journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously. The journal is committed to maintaining research integrity, protecting the reliability of published scholarship, and ensuring that allegations are handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with recognized publication ethics standards.

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to Justicia Journal, manuscripts under peer review, and articles that have already been published. The Editorial Board follows the principles, guidance, and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in assessing and addressing allegations of research misconduct.

1. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to behavior that represents a serious deviation from accepted ethical and scholarly standards in proposing, conducting, reviewing, reporting, or publishing research.

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. It also includes other improper practices that compromise the integrity of the research, peer-review process, or publication record.

2. Forms of Research Misconduct

Justicia Journal considers the following practices as forms of research misconduct:

Fabrication: inventing, recording, or reporting data, results, sources, or findings that were not actually obtained or performed.
Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, images, data, or results in a manner that misrepresents the research.
Plagiarism: using another person’s ideas, processes, results, words, or intellectual work without proper attribution or acknowledgment.
Self-plagiarism or redundant publication: reusing substantial parts of the authors’ previous work or publishing substantially the same work more than once without proper disclosure.
Duplicate submission: submitting the same manuscript, or a manuscript with substantial overlap, to more than one journal at the same time.
Authorship manipulation: adding, removing, or changing authors without the knowledge and consent of all authors, or including individuals who do not meet authorship criteria.
Citation manipulation: including citations primarily to increase the citation count of a particular journal, author, or article, or to conceal the source of copied material.
Image or figure manipulation: altering, duplicating, splicing, or misrepresenting images, figures, graphs, or visual data without appropriate disclosure.
Peer-review manipulation: attempting to influence the peer-review process through false identities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or improper communication with reviewers.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to disclose financial, personal, professional, or institutional relationships that may affect the objectivity of the research or publication.
Unethical research practices: conducting research without appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, or compliance with applicable legal and ethical requirements.

3. Who May Report an Allegation

Any individual may report a suspected case of research misconduct, including authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research participants, institutions, funders, or other concerned parties.

Allegations may be submitted anonymously, provided that they include sufficient information and verifiable evidence to allow the Editorial Board to conduct a meaningful assessment.

Reports should include:

The title, DOI, submission ID, or publication details of the manuscript or article concerned.
A clear and specific description of the alleged misconduct.
Supporting evidence, such as original data, published sources, similarity reports, correspondence, or documents demonstrating the concern.
The complainant’s contact details, unless the report is submitted anonymously.

4. Reporting Procedure

Allegations of research misconduct must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or the official editorial contact of Justicia Journal.

The subject of the communication should clearly indicate “Allegation of Research Misconduct.” The report should identify the relevant manuscript or article, describe the concern specifically, and attach available supporting evidence.

The Editorial Board acknowledges receipt of the allegation and conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation is credible, specific, and within the scope of this policy.

5. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will assess whether the allegation:

Falls within the definition of research misconduct.
Concerns a manuscript or article within the journal’s editorial responsibility.
Is supported by specific and verifiable evidence.
Requires further investigation or can be resolved through clarification.

Allegations that are vague, unsupported, malicious, or made in bad faith may be dismissed. However, the journal will not dismiss an allegation solely because it is submitted anonymously.

6. Confidentiality and Fairness

All allegations will be handled confidentially, fairly, and impartially. The identity of the complainant will not be disclosed to the accused party without the complainant’s consent, unless disclosure is legally required or necessary for a fair investigation.

Throughout the investigation, the accused party is presumed not to have committed misconduct until sufficient evidence supports a conclusion otherwise.

All parties involved will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide clarification, evidence, or supporting documents.

Allegations made in bad faith, with the intention of damaging another person’s reputation or obstructing the publication process, may themselves be treated as a violation of publication ethics.

7. Investigation Procedure

Where an allegation warrants further investigation, the Editorial Board will gather and review all relevant evidence. This evidence may include:

The manuscript, published article, and supplementary materials.
Similarity or plagiarism reports.
Original data, datasets, research instruments, or laboratory records.
Ethical approval documents and informed-consent records.
Peer-review reports and editorial correspondence.
Prior publications and related manuscripts.
Statements and explanations from authors, reviewers, or other relevant parties.

The Editorial Board may consult independent experts, the authors’ institution, the funder, or other relevant bodies where specialized expertise or institutional investigation is required.

The corresponding author will normally be informed of the concern and given a reasonable period, generally between two and four weeks, to respond on behalf of all co-authors.

8. Allegations Involving Editors or Reviewers

Allegations against members of the Editorial Board or peer reviewers will be handled using the same principles of fairness, confidentiality, and evidence-based assessment.

An editor or reviewer named in an allegation will not participate in the assessment or decision-making process concerning that allegation.

If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter will be handled by another senior member of the Editorial Board or referred to the publisher, Faculty of Law, Universitas Darul Ulum, for appropriate action.

9. Editorial Decisions and Actions

Depending on the findings of the investigation, the Editorial Board may take one or more of the following actions:

Dismiss the allegation if the evidence does not support misconduct.
Request clarification, revision, or additional documentation from the authors.
Reject the manuscript or discontinue the editorial process.
Publish a correction or erratum.
Publish an expression of concern where the integrity of the article remains uncertain.
Retract a published article where misconduct is confirmed and the integrity of the work is seriously compromised.
Notify the authors’ institution, funder, or other relevant bodies in serious cases.
Impose a temporary or permanent restriction on future submissions by the responsible authors.

10. Corrections and Retractions

A correction will be issued where a minor error or omission affects the accuracy of the published article but does not undermine its overall findings or integrity.

An expression of concern may be issued where there is substantial uncertainty regarding the integrity of an article and the investigation has not yet reached a definitive conclusion.

A retraction will be issued where there is clear evidence of serious research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, substantial plagiarism, or other violations that compromise the validity or integrity of the published work.

Retracted articles will remain accessible but will be clearly marked with a retraction notice. The notice will state the reason for retraction, identify the party responsible for the decision, and provide a link to the original article.

11. Appeals

Authors may submit a written appeal if they believe that an editorial decision regarding an allegation of research misconduct was made in error.

Appeals must include the relevant manuscript or article details, a clear explanation of the grounds for appeal, and supporting evidence.

The Editorial Board will review the appeal objectively and may seek independent expert advice where necessary. The final editorial decision will be communicated in writing to the corresponding author.

12. Policy Review

This Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy will be reviewed periodically by the Editorial Board of Justicia Journal to ensure alignment with developments in research integrity, publication ethics, and COPE guidance.