Research Misconduct
Research Misconduct Policy
The Indonesian Journal of Counter Terrorism and National Security (IJCNTNS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, transparency, and accountability of scholarly publishing. The journal's policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is informed by the guidelines and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Authors are required to read and comply with the journal's author guidelines, publication ethics policies, and submission requirements before submitting a manuscript. All authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to uphold the principles of responsible research conduct and academic integrity.
Research misconduct refers to actions or practices that compromise the integrity, reliability, or credibility of scholarly research. Such misconduct may occur during research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, peer review, or publication. Common forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate authorship practices, and other forms of unethical research conduct.
Plagiarism involves using another person's work, ideas, words, data, arguments, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment. It may include copying text without attribution, paraphrasing without proper citation, presenting another researcher's ideas as one's own, or reproducing substantial portions of previously published work without adequate acknowledgment.
Fabrication or falsification of data involves inventing research data, evidence, sources, or findings, or manipulating research materials, processes, data, or results in ways that misrepresent the research record. In the context of counterterrorism and national security research, this may include fabricating interview records, survey responses, field observations, case evidence, statistical findings, or documentary sources.
Inappropriate authorship practices include listing individuals as authors without qualifying scholarly contributions, omitting individuals who meet the journal's authorship requirements, or misrepresenting the contributions of authors and other research participants.
Other concerns may include duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of the peer-review process, undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence, unethical research involving human participants, and the unauthorized disclosure or misuse of confidential or sensitive information.
1. Prevention and Detection of Research Misconduct
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team play a central role in preventing, identifying, and addressing potential research misconduct throughout the editorial and publication processes. The journal implements the following measures to promote responsible research conduct and safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record.
1.1. Promotion of Research Ethics
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team inform authors, reviewers, and editorial board members about the journal's research ethics requirements, publication policies, and standards of responsible scholarly conduct. These requirements are communicated through the journal's website, author guidelines, reviewer instructions, and other appropriate channels.
1.2. Appropriate Selection of Peer Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief and relevant editors select qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject matter and a commitment to research integrity. Reviewers are encouraged to identify and report concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, questionable research practices, inappropriate authorship, and other potential ethical violations.
1.3. Rigorous Peer Review
The journal maintains a rigorous and fair peer-review process to evaluate the originality, validity, methodological soundness, evidentiary basis, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers and editors are encouraged to assess whether the claims and conclusions are adequately supported by the research methods, data, documents, and other evidence presented.
1.4. Plagiarism and Text Similarity Screening
The journal uses appropriate plagiarism or text similarity detection tools, such as Turnitin where available, to screen manuscripts for potential plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse. Similarity reports are assessed by the editors in context. A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism, and editorial decisions take into account the nature, extent, attribution, and circumstances of the identified similarities.
1.5. Assessment of Data, Sources, and Research Findings
The Editorial Team may request clarification, supporting documentation, or additional evidence where concerns arise regarding the accuracy, authenticity, or reliability of the research findings. Reviewers may examine the consistency of the research design, data, sources, analysis, and conclusions.
For research involving terrorism, counterterrorism, violent extremism, radicalization, law enforcement, intelligence, or national security, the journal recognizes that some evidence may be confidential, restricted, or subject to legitimate security and legal constraints. Requests for supporting materials must therefore be handled appropriately, with due regard for research ethics, personal data protection, confidentiality obligations, and applicable laws. Such restrictions do not remove the authors' responsibility to ensure that their research is credible, ethically conducted, and adequately substantiated.
2. Reporting Suspected Research Misconduct
Despite preventive measures, potential research misconduct may still occur. IJCNTNS therefore welcomes reports from readers, authors, reviewers, researchers, institutions, and other parties who have credible concerns about possible misconduct involving a manuscript under review or a published article.
All allegations will be handled fairly, objectively, confidentially, and without prejudgment. The journal applies the principle that an allegation must be assessed on the basis of relevant evidence and that the individuals concerned must have an appropriate opportunity to respond before a final editorial determination is made.
A report should identify the suspected misconduct as specifically as possible and provide relevant supporting information. For example, a plagiarism complaint should identify the passages in question and provide references to the original and suspected sources. Allegations involving data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, or other research integrity concerns should similarly include a clear explanation and any available supporting evidence.
Reports should be submitted to the journal through its official editorial contact or the appropriate communication channel provided on the journal's website. Confidential or sensitive information should be transmitted only through suitable channels and in accordance with applicable legal and ethical requirements.
3. Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
Complaints and allegations of research misconduct are handled with due care, impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for all parties involved. The journal follows the procedures below.
Step 1. Receipt of the Complaint
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Team receives and records the complaint concerning a manuscript submitted to or published by IJCNTNS. The complaint may concern plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.
Step 2. Preliminary Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and supported by information that warrants further examination. Where necessary, the complainant may be asked to provide additional details or supporting documentation.
The journal may dismiss or close a complaint at this stage if it is clearly unsupported, falls outside the journal's remit, or lacks sufficient information to justify further action. The reasons for such a decision should be documented.
Step 3. Investigation and Consultation
Where further examination is warranted, the Editor-in-Chief initiates an investigation and may consult the relevant handling editor, Associate Editor, Advisory Editor, external subject-matter experts, or other qualified individuals, as appropriate.
The investigation will consider the nature and seriousness of the allegation, the available evidence, relevant publication ethics guidance, and the journal's applicable policies. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the author's institution, research ethics committee, research integrity office, funding body, or other competent authority.
Step 4. Opportunity for Author Response
The corresponding author and, where necessary, other affected authors will be informed of the concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to provide a written explanation, relevant documentation, and other evidence.
Authors are expected to cooperate with the investigation and provide truthful, complete, and relevant information. The journal will consider the response fairly alongside the evidence available.
Step 5. Evaluation and Editorial Decision
After reviewing the available evidence and responses, the Editor-in-Chief determines the appropriate editorial action in accordance with the seriousness of the concern, the strength of the evidence, applicable journal policies, and relevant publication ethics guidance.
Where the allegation is substantiated or an appropriate resolution is otherwise established, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:
a. Manuscripts under review: Request clarification, additional evidence, or revisions; suspend editorial processing; reject the manuscript; or take other appropriate action.
b. Accepted manuscripts awaiting publication: Suspend publication while the matter is examined, request necessary corrections, withdraw acceptance, or take other appropriate action.
c. Published articles: Publish a correction, issue an expression of concern, retract the article, or take another appropriate post-publication action, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue and the reliability of the published record.
Where authors acknowledge an error or concern, the journal will still assess the appropriate response independently. An author's acknowledgment does not automatically determine whether a correction, rejection, or retraction is warranted.
Step 6. Nonresponse or Unsatisfactory Explanation
If the authors fail to respond within the specified period, provide an inadequate explanation, or decline to cooperate, the journal may proceed on the basis of the available evidence.
Where the allegations are serious or the evidence remains inconclusive, the journal may seek clarification or independent assessment from the relevant institution or competent authority before determining the appropriate action. Failure to respond does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred.
Step 7. Communication of the Outcome
The complainant will be informed of the outcome to the extent appropriate and permitted by confidentiality, privacy, and legal obligations. The authors and other relevant parties will also be informed of decisions affecting them, subject to applicable restrictions.
Step 8. Documentation and Closure
The journal maintains an appropriate record of the complaint, the evidence considered, communications, the authors' responses, consultations, and the resulting decision. Once the matter has been addressed and any necessary action has been taken, the case may be closed, subject to any further information or developments that warrant reconsideration.
4. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions
IJCNTNS is committed to maintaining an accurate and reliable scholarly record. Where concerns about a published article are identified, the journal will determine whether a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial action is appropriate.
A correction may be issued when an error can be rectified without invalidating the principal findings or conclusions of the article.
An expression of concern may be issued when substantial questions have arisen about an article's reliability or ethical compliance but the investigation remains ongoing or the available evidence is insufficient for a definitive decision.
A retraction may be issued when the published work is found to be unreliable because of serious error, substantiated misconduct, or other circumstances that materially undermine the integrity of the scholarly record.
Editorial notices will explain the reason for the action as clearly as possible, consistent with applicable confidentiality and legal requirements. The journal will ensure that corrections and retractions are appropriately linked to the original publication so that readers can identify the status of the article.
5. Confidentiality and Protection Against Retaliation
The journal treats allegations of research misconduct confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair investigation. Information will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or resolve the matter, or where disclosure is otherwise required or justified by applicable law or publication ethics obligations.
The identity of complainants, authors, reviewers, and other individuals involved will be protected where appropriate. However, absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation, consultation with competent authorities, or compliance with legal obligations.
The journal does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith or participate honestly in a research integrity investigation. Knowingly submitting false allegations or deliberately misrepresenting evidence may itself raise ethical concerns and will be assessed fairly.
6. Relationship with Institutions and Relevant Authorities
The journal recognizes that institutions and other competent bodies may have authority to investigate research misconduct, particularly where allegations concern research data, institutional resources, human participants, professional conduct, or possible violations of law.
Where appropriate, IJCNTNS may refer concerns to the institution responsible for the research or to another competent body. The journal's editorial investigation focuses on publication ethics and the reliability of the scholarly record; it does not replace formal institutional, regulatory, or legal investigations.
For research involving confidential security information, classified materials, intelligence-related sources, or sensitive personal data, any consultation or referral will be handled with due regard for applicable legal requirements and legitimate confidentiality restrictions.
The journal may take editorial action when necessary to protect the scholarly record, even if an institutional investigation has not been completed, provided that the action is justified by the available evidence and relevant publication ethics guidance.
7. Commitment to Publication Ethics
IJCNTNS is committed to handling research misconduct allegations in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles, including relevant COPE guidance. The journal seeks to ensure that all concerns are assessed consistently, fairly, transparently, and proportionately, with due consideration for the rights and responsibilities of authors, complainants, reviewers, editors, and readers.
The journal's policies and procedures may be reviewed periodically to reflect developments in publication ethics, research integrity standards, and applicable legal and institutional requirements.
Any statement concerning the journal's formal membership in or application to COPE will be published only when its status has been verified. Reference to COPE guidance does not, by itself, imply that the journal is a COPE member.
