Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

Journal of Advanced Computing and Digital Information Systems (JACDIS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and transparency of the scholarly record. The journal does not tolerate research misconduct or publication practices that may undermine confidence in research findings, authors, reviewers, editors, or the scholarly community.

JACDIS takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles them objectively, proportionately, consistently, and with appropriate documentation. When addressing allegations, JACDIS may refer to relevant principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and may communicate with the institutions with which the authors or researchers are affiliated when appropriate.

1. Scope

This policy applies to allegations of ethical violations involving:

  • manuscripts under editorial consideration;

  • published articles;

  • authors and contributors;

  • editors and reviewers;

  • research activities and reporting of research findings; and

  • the integrity of the scholarly record maintained by JACDIS.

Allegations may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, funding organizations, or other parties who have relevant information or a legitimate interest in the matter.

2. Types of Alleged Misconduct

JACDIS may investigate allegations involving, but not limited to:

  • fabrication of data or research findings;

  • falsification of data, methods, images, or research results;

  • manipulation, omission, or misleading presentation of research data;

  • plagiarism;

  • self-plagiarism or inappropriate reuse of previously published material;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • citation manipulation;

  • manipulation or interference with the peer review process;

  • inappropriate authorship, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship;

  • failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest;

  • unauthorized use of research data or materials;

  • violation of required ethical approval or research ethics requirements;

  • violations of the rights, safety, privacy, or confidentiality of research participants;

  • inappropriate manipulation or alteration of images;

  • misrepresentation of research methods, findings, or sources;

  • unauthorized use of data or research results; and

  • other practices that may materially compromise research integrity or the reliability of the scholarly record.

This list is not exhaustive. JACDIS may consider other forms of misconduct based on the nature of the case, the available evidence, and applicable research and publication ethics standards.

3. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of research misconduct may be submitted to JACDIS through the journal's official communication channel.

A report should include, where available:

  1. the identity and contact information of the complainant;

  2. the title of the manuscript or article;

  3. the names of the authors;

  4. the manuscript ID and/or DOI;

  5. a clear and specific description of the alleged misconduct;

  6. the relevant section of the article or research process;

  7. supporting evidence or relevant information; and

  8. any other information that may assist JACDIS in conducting an initial assessment.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable information. However, anonymity may limit JACDIS's ability to seek clarification or conduct a full investigation.

4. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, JACDIS will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

  • whether the allegation falls within the journal's authority;

  • whether sufficient information has been provided to warrant further consideration;

  • whether there is an initial indication of research or publication misconduct;

  • whether clarification is required from the parties involved;

  • whether a conflict of interest exists in handling the case; and

  • whether the matter should be referred to another editor, the publisher, an institution, or another appropriate authority.

An initial assessment does not constitute a finding of misconduct. JACDIS will not presume that a person is responsible for misconduct solely on the basis of an unverified allegation.

5. Collection and Evaluation of Evidence

When an allegation warrants further consideration, JACDIS may examine:

  • the manuscript and previous versions;

  • editorial records and relevant correspondence;

  • available research data or materials;

  • figures, tables, graphs, and supplementary materials;

  • similarity or other screening reports;

  • peer review reports;

  • authorship and contributorship statements;

  • conflict-of-interest declarations;

  • information concerning ethical approval;

  • sources of research data or materials;

  • other relevant publications; and

  • any other evidence relevant to the case.

JACDIS may request clarification or additional documentation from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other relevant parties.

Evidence will be assessed objectively and, where appropriate, based on multiple sources rather than on a single indicator or screening result.

6. Opportunity to Respond

The person or parties alleged to have engaged in misconduct will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation, clarification, or supporting evidence before JACDIS takes a material editorial action, where circumstances permit.

Such responses will be considered together with the available evidence and will not automatically be treated as proof that the allegation is either substantiated or unfounded.

In cases where immediate action is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record, JACDIS may take interim measures before the clarification process is completed.

7. Involvement of the Author's Institution

JACDIS recognizes that the institution where research was conducted or with which an author is affiliated may have primary authority to investigate allegations of research misconduct.

When an allegation concerns research practices, data integrity, fabrication, falsification, ethical approval, or another matter that requires institutional investigation, JACDIS may request that the author or relevant party provide clarification or documentation from the appropriate institution.

Where appropriate and legally permissible, JACDIS may contact the relevant institution to request information or notify it of an allegation.

Referral to an institution does not remove JACDIS's responsibility to take appropriate editorial action when necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

8. Allegations Involving Editors or Reviewers

When an allegation involves an editor, reviewer, or editorial board member, any person with a conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process concerning the case.

JACDIS may appoint an independent editor or another authorized person to handle the matter.

If there are allegations of peer review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or other unethical conduct, JACDIS may take appropriate action, including replacing a reviewer, removing a reviewer from the editorial process, restricting future participation, or referring the matter to an institution or appropriate authority.

9. Allegations of Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

When plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or inappropriate reuse of previously published material is suspected, JACDIS may examine relevant sources and request clarification from the authors.

If the allegation is substantiated or there is strong evidence of misconduct, JACDIS may take action appropriate to the seriousness of the case, including:

  • rejecting a manuscript under consideration;

  • requesting a correction or clarification;

  • publishing an editorial notice;

  • issuing an Expression of Concern;

  • correcting a published article;

  • retracting a published article; or

  • taking another proportionate action.

10. Fabrication, Falsification, and Data Manipulation

Allegations involving fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of research data are treated as serious matters because they may compromise the validity of research findings and the reliability of the scholarly record.

JACDIS may request that authors provide:

  • relevant research data;

  • information concerning data collection procedures;

  • analysis documentation;

  • information about data sources;

  • supporting research materials; or

  • other explanations necessary to assess the allegation.

When there is substantial evidence that research or data have been fabricated, falsified, or materially manipulated, JACDIS may request that the author's institution conduct a formal investigation and may take appropriate editorial action concerning the manuscript or published article.

11. Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

For research involving human participants, animals, personal data, or sensitive research materials, JACDIS may request information concerning ethical approval, informed consent, privacy protection, or other applicable ethical requirements.

When there is an allegation that research was conducted without required ethical approval or failed to adequately protect research participants or subjects, JACDIS may request clarification and relevant documentation.

For serious cases, JACDIS may refer the matter to the appropriate institution, ethics committee, or other competent authority and may take appropriate editorial action.

12. Conflicts of Interest

An undisclosed conflict of interest may constitute an ethical concern when it could materially affect the conduct of the research, interpretation of findings, peer review process, or editorial decision-making.

JACDIS may request authors, reviewers, or editors to disclose and clarify relevant interests.

When an undisclosed conflict of interest is confirmed, JACDIS may require a correction to the conflict-of-interest statement or take other editorial action proportionate to the nature and impact of the issue.

13. Confidentiality

JACDIS will maintain the confidentiality of research misconduct cases to the extent reasonably possible.

Information concerning a case will be shared only with individuals who have a legitimate need to know, such as designated editors, relevant authors, reviewers, the publisher, research institutions, ethics committees, or competent authorities.

Confidentiality may be waived when disclosure is necessary to comply with legal obligations, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, conduct an investigation, or satisfy legitimate ethical requirements.

14. Protection of Complainants

JACDIS will not take adverse action against a person solely because that person has reported an allegation in good faith.

Complainants are expected to provide information honestly, objectively, and responsibly.

Reports that are knowingly false, defamatory, threatening, harassing, or intended to disrupt the editorial process may be addressed as a separate matter.

15. Interim Editorial Actions

When an allegation may affect the integrity of the editorial process or the scholarly record, JACDIS may take interim measures, including:

  • delaying an editorial decision;

  • postponing publication;

  • temporarily suspending the editorial process;

  • replacing a reviewer with a conflict of interest;

  • requesting additional documentation or research data;

  • placing an internal note in the editorial record; or

  • taking other measures necessary to prevent further harm.

Interim measures do not, by themselves, constitute a finding that misconduct has occurred.

16. Outcomes of a Misconduct Case

Based on the outcome of its assessment, JACDIS may:

  1. close the case when there is insufficient basis to proceed;

  2. request clarification or correction;

  3. correct an editorial or procedural error;

  4. reject the manuscript;

  5. request a correction to a published article;

  6. publish an editorial notice;

  7. issue an Expression of Concern;

  8. retract a published article when warranted;

  9. replace a reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest;

  10. restrict or terminate an individual's participation in the editorial process;

  11. refer the matter to the relevant research institution or authority; or

  12. take another action proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the misconduct.

The action taken will consider the seriousness of the allegation, the available evidence, the potential impact on the scholarly record, whether the conduct appears intentional or unintentional, and whether the issue can be adequately corrected.

17. Actions Concerning Published Articles

When an allegation concerns a published article, JACDIS will prioritize protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

Depending on the outcome of the assessment, JACDIS may issue:

  • Correction, when an error can be corrected without making the article as a whole unreliable;

  • Expression of Concern, when there is a significant unresolved concern but the available evidence or investigation is not yet sufficient to reach a final conclusion; or

  • Retraction, when an article contains serious problems that make its findings or conclusions unreliable or when a serious ethical violation warrants withdrawal of the article from the scholarly record.

Such actions will be implemented transparently and linked to the affected article whenever reasonably possible.

18. Independence and Conflicts of Interest in Investigations

Individuals responsible for handling an allegation must be free from conflicts of interest that could affect their judgment.

If an editor has a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship that could compromise impartiality, the matter will be assigned to an independent editor or another authorized person.

Decisions concerning research misconduct must not be influenced by pressure from authors, reviewers, institutions, sponsors, or other parties without legitimate editorial authority.

19. Case Documentation and Records

JACDIS will maintain appropriate records of research misconduct cases, including:

  • the date the allegation was received;

  • the identities of the parties involved, when available;

  • the nature of the allegation;

  • evidence and documents reviewed;

  • relevant communications and responses;

  • the assessment and findings;

  • the decision;

  • actions taken; and

  • any required follow-up.

Case records are maintained to support consistency, accountability, and the integrity of the editorial process.

20. Cases Beyond the Journal's Authority

When JACDIS does not have the authority or ability to establish facts that require institutional investigation, particularly in matters involving research conduct or institutional procedures, the journal may refer the case to the author's institution, research organization, ethics committee, publisher, or another appropriate authority.

JACDIS may await the outcome of an institutional investigation when that outcome is necessary to determine the appropriate editorial action.

However, when there is a risk to the integrity of the scholarly record, JACDIS may take appropriate editorial action without waiting for the completion of an institutional investigation.

21. Proportionality

JACDIS will apply actions proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the alleged misconduct.

Administrative errors or errors that do not affect the validity or integrity of the research will not automatically be treated in the same manner as fabrication, falsification, serious plagiarism, peer review manipulation, or other serious forms of misconduct.

Where the available evidence permits, JACDIS will distinguish between inadvertent errors, administrative noncompliance, substantive errors, and deliberate or repeated misconduct.

22. Fair Treatment

All parties involved in a research misconduct case will be treated fairly and objectively.

JACDIS will not regard an allegation as proof of misconduct without appropriate assessment. At the same time, the journal will not disregard a credible allegation merely because it involves an author, reviewer, editor, or another person associated with the journal.

Decisions will be based on available evidence, journal policies, relevant publication ethics principles, and the need to protect the reliability of the scholarly record.

23. Reference to Publication Ethics Guidance

In handling allegations of research misconduct, JACDIS may refer to relevant guidance and principles issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as applicable research and publication ethics standards.

Where appropriate, JACDIS may use relevant ethical case-handling procedures and guidance to ensure that allegations are addressed consistently, fairly, and proportionately.

24. Responsibilities of the Parties

24.1 Authors

Authors are responsible for:

  • providing accurate and complete information;

  • maintaining the integrity of research data and processes;

  • providing clarification when requested;

  • providing relevant evidence or documentation when available;

  • disclosing relevant conflicts of interest; and

  • cooperating reasonably with the investigation process.

24.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • handling allegations objectively and independently;

  • maintaining confidentiality;

  • avoiding conflicts of interest;

  • ensuring that relevant parties have a reasonable opportunity to provide clarification;

  • documenting the handling process; and

  • taking or recommending proportionate action.

24.3 Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

  • maintaining manuscript confidentiality;

  • reporting suspected misconduct based on relevant reasons and evidence;

  • avoiding unsupported allegations;

  • disclosing conflicts of interest; and

  • not using information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

24.4 JACDIS

JACDIS is responsible for:

  • providing an accessible mechanism for reporting allegations;

  • assessing allegations fairly and consistently;

  • protecting the integrity of the editorial process;

  • taking proportionate action;

  • communicating with relevant institutions or authorities when appropriate; and

  • protecting the reliability and integrity of the published scholarly record.

25. Policy Statement

JACDIS is committed to handling all allegations of research misconduct seriously, fairly, independently, transparently, and proportionately. The journal will not treat an allegation as proof of misconduct without appropriate assessment, but it will not disregard credible allegations supported by relevant information.

Where necessary, JACDIS may cooperate with research institutions, ethics committees, publishers, and competent authorities to obtain information required to assess a case. In all circumstances, JACDIS's primary objectives are to protect research integrity, ensure a fair editorial process, and maintain the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record.