Research Misconduct

The Indonesian State Law Review (ISLRev) is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and credibility of scholarly publishing. The journal's policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is informed by the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applicable standards of responsible research and publication ethics.

Authors are required to read the journal's Author Guidelines and publication ethics policies carefully and comply with the applicable requirements before submitting a manuscript. Research misconduct refers to unethical practices that compromise the integrity, reliability, or credibility of scholarly research and publication. Such misconduct may occur in doctrinal legal research, comparative legal studies, empirical legal research, socio-legal studies, and other forms of legal scholarship.

Common forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data or evidence, inappropriate authorship practices, citation manipulation, and other practices that undermine the integrity of scholarly work.

Plagiarism involves using another person's words, ideas, arguments, research findings, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment. It may include verbatim copying, inadequate paraphrasing, the use of another author's legal analysis without proper attribution, and presenting another person's original arguments as one's own. Plagiarism may also involve the unauthorized or undisclosed reuse of one's own previously published work where such reuse violates applicable publication standards.

Fabrication or falsification of data or evidence involves inventing, manipulating, or misrepresenting research data, sources, findings, or evidence. In legal scholarship, this may include fabricating interview results, survey responses, case studies, research records, judicial decisions, legal documents, or other supporting evidence. It may also include deliberately misrepresenting legislation, judicial decisions, official documents, or other authoritative sources in a manner that materially distorts the research findings or legal arguments.

Inappropriate authorship practices include granting authorship to individuals who have not made a qualifying scholarly contribution, omitting individuals who qualify for authorship, or misrepresenting the contributions of authors and other contributors.

Other potential forms of misconduct include citation manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and the deliberate misrepresentation of sources or research methods. Allegations will be assessed according to their nature, seriousness, available evidence, and relevance to the integrity of the scholarly record.

1. Prevention and Detection of Research Misconduct

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team play an essential role in preventing, identifying, and addressing potential research misconduct throughout the editorial and peer-review processes. ISLRev implements the following measures to safeguard research integrity and uphold publication ethics:

1. Promoting ethical awareness. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that authors, reviewers, and editorial board members are informed of the journal's publication ethics policies, authorship requirements, citation standards, and expectations concerning responsible research conduct.

2. Selecting qualified reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant area of law or interdisciplinary research. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and confidentially and to report concerns regarding possible plagiarism, fabricated evidence, falsified information, inappropriate authorship, or other ethical violations.

3. Conducting rigorous peer review. The Editorial Team ensures that manuscripts undergo an appropriate and rigorous evaluation process. Reviewers are encouraged to examine the accuracy of legal arguments, the reliability of cited authorities, the consistency of research methods, and the validity of the evidence supporting the manuscript's conclusions.

4. Using plagiarism detection tools. ISLRev may use plagiarism detection software, including Turnitin or other appropriate tools, to screen submitted manuscripts for potential plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse. Similarity reports are assessed by the Editorial Team in context; a similarity score alone does not establish the existence or absence of plagiarism.

5. Verifying sources and evidence. The Editorial Team and reviewers may examine the accuracy and authenticity of cited legislation, judicial decisions, official documents, scholarly publications, empirical data, and other sources relevant to the manuscript. Authors may be asked to provide clarification or supporting documentation when concerns arise.

6. Assessing authorship and declarations. The journal may review authorship statements, contributor roles, funding declarations, conflicts of interest, and disclosures concerning the use of artificial intelligence or other research assistance, where applicable.

These preventive measures are intended to reduce the risk of misconduct. However, the journal recognizes that potential violations may still arise before or after publication.

2. Reporting Suspected Research Misconduct

ISLRev welcomes reports from readers, authors, reviewers, researchers, institutions, and other interested parties concerning suspected research misconduct in manuscripts under review or articles already published by the journal.

Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact email address or another designated communication channel. The report should identify the manuscript or published article concerned and provide a clear description of the suspected misconduct, together with relevant supporting evidence where available.

The journal follows the principle of fairness and presumes that allegations remain unsubstantiated until they have been appropriately assessed. This principle does not prevent the journal from taking reasonable interim measures to protect the integrity of the editorial process or the scholarly record.

All complaints will be handled with due care, confidentiality, impartiality, and respect for the rights of the complainant and the individuals concerned. Information will be shared only with those who need it for the assessment and resolution of the case, subject to applicable legal and institutional obligations.

3. Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

Allegations of research misconduct involving a manuscript under review or a published article will be handled according to the following procedures.

1. Receipt of the complaint

The Editor-in-Chief receives and records the complaint concerning a manuscript submitted to or published in ISLRev. The complaint may concern plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data or evidence, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, or other suspected violations of research and publication ethics.

2. Preliminary assessment

The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the journal's remit and whether sufficient information is available to justify further examination. The complainant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation if the allegation is unclear or incomplete.

3. Examination of the evidence

Where further examination is warranted, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the relevant Section Editor, Associate Editor, Advisory Editor, independent subject experts, or other appropriate persons. The assessment may include checking source materials, comparing relevant publications, reviewing similarity reports, examining research records, or verifying legal authorities and other evidence cited in the manuscript.

4. Request for an explanation

The corresponding author and, where appropriate, other authors will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide a factual explanation and relevant supporting evidence within a reasonable period specified by the journal. The authors' responses will be considered fairly and impartially.

5. Evaluation and editorial decision

After considering the available evidence and the authors' responses, the Editor-in-Chief will determine the appropriate editorial action. Where necessary, the journal may seek advice from independent experts or contact the authors' affiliated institutions or relevant research integrity authorities.

The journal's response will depend on the nature and seriousness of the alleged misconduct and the stage of the publication process.

• For manuscripts under review: The journal may request clarification, require appropriate corrections or additional documentation, suspend the review process, or reject the manuscript if the concerns are substantiated and cannot be adequately resolved.

• For accepted manuscripts not yet published: Publication may be suspended pending further investigation. The journal may require corrections, withdraw acceptance, or take other appropriate action based on the findings.

• For published articles: The journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, as appropriate, to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. The decision will take into account the significance of the problem, its effect on the reliability of the article, and relevant publication ethics guidance.

An author's acknowledgment of an allegation will be considered alongside the available evidence and will not automatically determine the appropriate outcome. Similarly, disagreement with an allegation will not, by itself, establish that the allegation is unfounded.

6. Failure to respond or insufficient explanation

If the authors fail to respond within the specified period without an adequate explanation, or if their response does not satisfactorily address the concerns, the journal may proceed based on the available evidence. Where appropriate, the journal may seek confirmation or assistance from the authors' affiliated institutions or other competent authorities before making a final decision.

Failure to respond does not, by itself, establish misconduct. Any editorial action will be proportionate to the available evidence and the need to protect the scholarly record.

7. Communication of the outcome

The complainant will be informed of the outcome to the extent appropriate and permissible under confidentiality requirements. The authors concerned will also be informed of the journal's decision and any action affecting their manuscript or published article.

8. Closure and record keeping

Once the matter has been adequately assessed and the appropriate action has been taken, the journal will close the case. Relevant correspondence, evidence, assessment records, and decisions will be retained securely in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures and applicable confidentiality requirements.

4. Editorial Actions and Protection of the Scholarly Record

ISLRev seeks to ensure that editorial actions are fair, evidence-based, transparent, and proportionate to the nature of the identified problem.

Depending on the findings, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

• Request clarification, additional evidence, or correction of inaccurate information.

• Reject a manuscript or withdraw acceptance where serious concerns remain unresolved.

• Publish a correction when an identifiable error can be appropriately remedied without invalidating the overall reliability of the article.

• Publish an expression of concern when significant concerns require public notice while further investigation is pending or the available evidence remains inconclusive.

• Retract a published article when the findings establish that retraction is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

• Refer the matter to the relevant institution, research integrity body, or other competent authority when the investigation requires institutional assessment.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will be issued in accordance with applicable publication ethics guidance and the journal's procedures for post-publication updates. The journal will seek to maintain a transparent record of editorial actions without unnecessarily disclosing confidential information.

5. Institutional Cooperation and Appeals

Where an allegation involves complex factual issues, serious research integrity concerns, or matters beyond the journal's ability to investigate independently, ISLRev may contact the relevant author's institution or another competent authority. Institutional cooperation may be necessary to verify research records, determine responsibility, or establish facts that cannot be adequately assessed through the editorial process alone.

The journal's investigation is intended to determine the appropriate editorial response and protect the scholarly record. It does not replace formal institutional investigations or legal proceedings.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision concerning alleged misconduct may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal, supported by relevant evidence or an explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate editor who was not materially involved in the original decision, where practicable. The journal may seek independent advice when necessary.

6. Commitment to Publication Ethics

ISLRev is committed to handling allegations of research misconduct in accordance with the principles of fairness, confidentiality, impartiality, accountability, and protection of the scholarly record. The journal will consider relevant COPE guidance when determining appropriate procedures and editorial responses.

The journal will accurately disclose its formal memberships and affiliations with publication ethics organizations. Any application for membership in COPE or another organization will be described as pending until membership has been formally confirmed.

Through this policy, ISLRev seeks to promote responsible legal scholarship, preserve public confidence in academic publishing, and ensure that published research meets appropriate standards of academic integrity and ethical conduct.