Allegations of Misconduct

AIJOSH is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record and maintaining ethical standards in research and publication. This policy explains how the journal receives, assesses, and addresses allegations of misconduct.

It should be read alongside the journal’s Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, Authorship and Contributorship Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Peer-Review Policy, and policies on corrections and retractions.

1. Scope and Definitions

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to or published in AIJOSH and to authors, reviewers, editors, journal staff, and others involved in its publication process. Concerns may be raised before or after publication.

Research and publication misconduct may include:

Fabrication: Inventing data, sources, evidence, quotations, participants, or findings and presenting them as authentic.
Falsification: Manipulating research materials, documents, images, procedures, or data, or selectively altering or omitting evidence in ways that misrepresent the research.
Plagiarism: Presenting another person’s words, ideas, findings, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
Redundant publication and inappropriate text recycling: Republishing substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment.
Authorship misconduct: Including ineligible authors, excluding eligible contributors, listing individuals without consent, trading authorship positions, or misrepresenting contributions.
Citation manipulation: Adding, requesting, or coordinating citations primarily to inflate citation counts or distort the scholarly record.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose relevant interests that could influence research, peer review, or editorial decisions.
Breaches of research ethics: Failing to obtain required ethical approval or informed consent, violating confidentiality, or disregarding applicable ethical requirements.
Peer-review manipulation: Using fabricated reviewer identities, submitting fraudulent reviews, or improperly influencing reviewer selection or editorial decisions.
Misuse of confidential material: Using or disclosing unpublished manuscripts, review reports, research information, or editorial correspondence without authorization.
Misrepresentation of AI-assisted work: Concealing prohibited or materially relevant uses of generative AI, or presenting generated sources, data, quotations, or other outputs as authentic research evidence.

Honest errors and legitimate differences in interpretation do not, by themselves, constitute misconduct. Nevertheless, errors affecting an article’s accuracy or reliability may require editorial action.

A policy breach will be assessed in context. Its significance, consequences, and the available evidence determine the appropriate response.

2. Principles for Handling Allegations

The journal assesses concerns according to their specificity, supporting evidence, and relevance, regardless of who raises them.

The following principles guide case handling:

Fairness: An allegation is not proof of misconduct. Individuals concerned will have a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Confidentiality: Information will be shared only with those who need it to assess or resolve the matter, subject to applicable obligations.
Protection of complainants: The journal will protect the identity of individuals reporting concerns in good faith as far as reasonably possible and will not tolerate retaliation within its editorial processes.
Independence: Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must not assess the case or decide its outcome.
Timeliness: Cases will be addressed without unnecessary delay, with progress updates where appropriate.
Proportionality: Action will reflect the evidence, seriousness of the concern, and implications for the scholarly record.

An allegation that cannot be substantiated is not automatically a malicious complaint. Concerns will be assessed on their merits, without personal attacks or assumptions about the complainant’s motives.

3. Reporting an Allegation

Concerns should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the official contact details published on the journal’s website.

Reports should include, where available:

The manuscript ID, article title, DOI, or publication link.
A clear description of the concern.
The passages, figures, data, sources, or procedures involved.
Supporting documents, comparisons, links, or correspondence.
Contact details for follow-up, if the complainant is willing to provide them.

Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. Concerns raised publicly may also be assessed.

If an allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be directed to LPPM Universitas Andalas through its official contact channel. A person without a relevant conflict will be assigned to handle the case.

If publisher personnel are implicated, an independent external editor or adviser will be appointed. Individuals named in an allegation must not control its assessment or outcome.

4. Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent designee will determine whether the concern falls within this policy and whether sufficient information is available to proceed.

The journal may request clarification or additional evidence. Reports that remain insufficiently specific, unsupported, or outside the journal’s remit may be closed, with an explanation to the complainant where possible. Cases may be reopened if substantial new evidence becomes available.

Peer review, acceptance, or publication may be temporarily paused while a credible concern is examined. A pause is a precautionary measure and does not establish misconduct.

A withdrawal request does not automatically close an integrity concern. The journal may continue examining relevant evidence or refer the matter to an appropriate institution.

5. Editorial Examination and Institutional Referral

When further examination is warranted, the journal will notify the individuals concerned, explain the relevant allegations, and request a written response within a reasonable stated timeframe.

Supporting information will be shared to the extent necessary for a meaningful response while protecting confidential information. The journal cannot guarantee absolute anonymity where disclosure is necessary to assess the concern fairly or meet applicable obligations.

Examination may include reviewing:

Submitted manuscripts and published articles.
Research data, source documents, images, and analytical records.
Ethical approvals and consent documentation.
Authorship agreements and contribution statements.
Peer-review records and submission metadata.
Funding disclosures and relevant correspondence.

Independent subject specialists or research integrity advisers may be consulted. They must comply with confidentiality requirements and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

The journal assesses the integrity of its editorial processes and published record. Formal investigations into researchers’ conduct generally fall within the responsibility of their institutions or other competent bodies.

Where appropriate, the journal may refer concerns to an institution, employer, funding body, or research integrity authority and request information about the outcome. Unresolved authorship disputes may also require institutional adjudication.

The journal may act to protect readers while an institutional investigation is pending. Clear evidence that published content is unreliable may justify editorial action without waiting for a final institutional finding.

Failure to respond does not, by itself, prove misconduct. However, it does not prevent the journal from making a reasoned decision based on the available evidence after reasonable attempts to obtain a response.

6. Outcomes and Editorial Actions

Decisions will be based on the evidence and its implications for the article’s reliability, attribution, ethical acceptability, or the integrity of its evaluation.

Possible actions include:

Closure without further action: Where the concern is satisfactorily resolved or insufficient evidence supports further action.
Clarification or revision: Requesting explanations, disclosures, attribution, or amendments to a manuscript.
Additional independent assessment: Obtaining further review when the original evaluation may have been compromised.
Correction: Addressing a limited error or omission without invalidating the article as a whole.
Rejection: Declining a manuscript where substantiated concerns make it unsuitable for publication.
Expression of concern: Alerting readers to substantial unresolved concerns while evidence remains inconclusive or an investigation is pending.
Retraction: Correcting the record where serious problems warrant withdrawal of the article’s standing as a reliable or ethically acceptable publication.
Referral or notification: Informing relevant institutions or other responsible bodies when further investigation or action is necessary.

Where an editor, reviewer, or staff member is implicated, measures may also include reassignment, restriction of access to confidential materials, or removal from an editorial or reviewer role following appropriate assessment.

Public notices will explain the action and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles will ordinarily remain accessible and clearly marked as retracted. Removal of content is exceptional and will be handled under the journal’s applicable policy.

Retraction protects the scholarly record rather than serving as punishment. It may be necessary whether unreliability results from misconduct or honest error. Author disagreement does not prevent justified editorial action.

7. Appeals

Individuals wishing to appeal a decision should submit a written appeal through the journal’s official contact channel.

An appeal must identify the decision and explain relevant procedural concerns, factual errors, or substantial new evidence. Disagreement alone does not require reversal.

Where practicable, an editor or independent adviser who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict will assess the appeal. The outcome and reasons will be communicated to the appellant.

An appeal does not automatically suspend action necessary to protect the scholarly record. Further reconsideration may be appropriate if material new evidence becomes available.

8. Records and Communication

The journal maintains confidential records of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessments, referrals, and decisions. Access is restricted to individuals with a legitimate role in handling the matter.

Relevant documents should be preserved during an ongoing examination. Individuals involved must not alter or destroy records needed to assess the concern.

Outcomes will be communicated to the relevant parties as appropriate, subject to confidentiality requirements. Complainants may receive an update on the disposition of a report without receiving confidential personnel, research, or editorial information.

Where published content requires amendment, the journal will issue an appropriate public notice. Notices will use factual, proportionate language and distinguish established findings from unresolved concerns.

9. Prevention and Policy Review

AIJOSH promotes research and publication integrity through clear author and reviewer guidance, appropriate screening, independent peer review, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and editorial training.

Similarity-checking tools and other automated screening systems may support assessment. Their outputs must be interpreted in context and do not independently establish misconduct.

The journal reviews this policy periodically and consults relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when handling cases. Referring to COPE guidance does not imply that COPE investigates individual cases on the journal’s behalf.