Research Misconduct

The journal’s policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authors are required to read the journal’s author guidelines and policies carefully and to adhere to the terms before submission. Research misconduct refers to unethical behavior or actions that undermine the integrity and credibility of scientific research. The most common types of research misconduct include plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, and inappropriate authorship practices.

Plagiarism involves using someone else’s work, ideas, or words without proper acknowledgment. It can occur in various forms, such as copying sections of text, paraphrasing without citation, or presenting someone else’s ideas as one’s own. Fabrication or falsification of data involves the deliberate manipulation or invention of research findings or experimental data, which can lead to false conclusions or misleading scientific claims. Inappropriate authorship practices occur when individuals are credited as authors without having made a significant contribution to the research or when deserving contributors are omitted from authorship.

Editors in Chief plays a crucial role in preventing research misconduct during the peer review process. Several measures implemented to safeguard the integrity of the research and uphold ethical standards are:

  1. Promote awareness: Editor in Chief inform authors, reviewers, and editorial board members about research misconduct, ethical guidelines, and responsible conduct of research for the journal through clear instructions, guidelines, and other communication means.
  2. Peer reviewer selection: Editor in Chief carefully select peer reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field and are committed to upholding ethical standards. Reviewers should be aware of potential signs of misconduct and be encouraged to report any concerns.
  3. Thorough review process: Editor in Chief ensures a rigorous and transparent peer review process. Reviewers should scrutinize the submitted manuscripts for potential misconduct, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or questionable research practices.
  4. Use plagiarism detection software: Editor in Chief employs TurnItIn as a plagiarism detection tool to screen submissions for potential instances of plagiarism or text recycling. It helps identifying cases of unacknowledged or improper use of existing work.
  5. Cross-check data and results: Editor in Chief encourages reviewers to examine the accuracy and validity of the presented data and results.

Although the Editor in Chief has made various efforts to anticipate research misconduct in the journal, some issues may still arise. Therefore, the journal is open to receiving reports from readers regarding potential research misconduct. The Editor in Chief operates on the principle of presumption of innocence when receiving reports of potential research misconduct from readers until they are proven to be true.

Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process. The procedure for the application and management of complaints of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and in the following manner:

  1. The Editor in Chief receives a complaint through email that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
  2. The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
  3. The Editor in Chief will conduct an investigation, during which time the section editor of the particular suspected articles and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact. The Editor in Chief can also invite any Advisory Editor or Associate Editor in the process.
  4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation with factual statements and any available evidence.
  5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the Editor in Chief will take the following actions depending on the situation:
    1. If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description.
    2. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
  6. In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
  7. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
  8. The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.

The journal is adherent to the principles of the and is currently applying membership to the COPE. Once the application is accepted, some information on this matter will be updated.