Research Misconduct

1. Policy and Principles

Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik is committed to maintaining research integrity, academic honesty, transparency, and accountability throughout the publication process. Allegations of research misconduct are handled in accordance with the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including its guidance on publication ethics and retraction.

This policy applies to allegations arising before and after publication and covers authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the journal's editorial and publication processes.

The journal applies the following principles:

  1. Evidence-based assessment: All allegations are assessed objectively based on verifiable evidence, not on personal disputes, assumptions, or an individual's academic reputation.

  2. Fairness and due process: The parties concerned are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations and provide supporting evidence.

  3. Confidentiality: Allegations and related documentation are handled confidentially and shared only with parties who need the information to assess or resolve the case.

  4. Protection of good-faith reporting: Individuals who report suspected misconduct in good faith are protected against inappropriate disclosure of their identity and potential retaliation.

  5. Proportionate action: Decisions are proportionate to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and aim to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

  6. Institutional responsibility: The journal assesses publication-related evidence and may refer suspected research misconduct to the relevant author's institution or other competent authority for further investigation.

2. Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following forms of unethical research and publication practice.

2.1 Fabrication

Fabrication involves inventing data, research participants, interviews, observations, documents, references, or research results and presenting them as genuine.

2.2 Falsification

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, data, analytical procedures, images, quotations, or research findings, or selectively omitting relevant information in a manner that misrepresents the research.

2.3 Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves using another person's ideas, words, data, arguments, or work without appropriate acknowledgement. It includes direct copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, translation plagiarism, and presenting another person's unpublished work as one's own.

2.4 Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication occurs when substantially overlapping research findings are published more than once without appropriate disclosure or justification. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is also prohibited.

2.5 Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Authors must not reuse substantial portions of their previously published work without appropriate acknowledgement and disclosure. Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions may be acceptable when justified, transparently handled, and consistent with applicable copyright requirements. Dividing a single study into multiple publications without sufficient scholarly justification (salami slicing) is also unacceptable.

2.6 Authorship and Contribution Misconduct

Authorship misconduct includes gift, guest, or ghost authorship; exclusion of individuals who meet legitimate authorship criteria; and changes to authorship without the agreement of all affected authors. All listed authors must have made appropriate scholarly contributions and approved the submitted manuscript.

2.7 Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could improperly influence their research, evaluation, or editorial decisions.

2.8 Research Ethics Violations

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical standards and legal requirements. Misconduct may include conducting research without required ethical approval or informed consent, breaching confidentiality, misrepresenting participants' statements, or exposing vulnerable individuals and communities to unjustified risks.

Particular care must be taken in research involving public officials, civil servants, students, migrant workers, indigenous communities, and other groups whose circumstances may create heightened risks of coercion, identification, or harm.

2.9 Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation includes excessive or irrelevant self-citation, coercive citation, citation stacking, and the deliberate addition of references intended primarily to inflate citation metrics rather than improve scholarly discussion.

2.10 Peer-Review and Editorial Misconduct

Peer-review and editorial misconduct includes impersonating reviewers, recommending fabricated reviewer identities, reviewing one's own work under a false identity, breaching manuscript confidentiality, misusing unpublished information, and making editorial decisions influenced by undisclosed conflicts of interest.

2.11 Paper Mills and Fraudulent Manuscripts

The journal does not accept manuscripts produced or sold through fraudulent publication services, purchased authorship, fabricated research, or other deceptive practices designed to circumvent legitimate scholarly processes.

2.12 Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools must not be used to fabricate research data, interview transcripts, research participants, findings, references, or other evidence. AI tools must not be listed as authors.

Authors must disclose AI use when required by the journal's AI policy and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical compliance of their submissions. Undisclosed or deceptive AI use may constitute misconduct, depending on its nature and impact.

3. Prevention and Detection

Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik takes reasonable measures to prevent and identify suspected research misconduct through the following procedures:

  1. Initial editorial screening: Submitted manuscripts are assessed for originality, relevance, completeness, ethical compliance, and potential publication ethics concerns.

  2. Similarity screening: Manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism-detection software. Similarity reports are interpreted contextually by the editorial team; a similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism or prove that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

  3. Verification of references and evidence: Editors may examine suspicious citations, inconsistent findings, questionable data, duplicated material, and other indicators of potential misconduct.

  4. Author declarations: Authors may be required to confirm originality, authorship contributions, funding sources, conflicts of interest, research ethics compliance, and relevant AI use.

  5. Requests for supporting materials: Where justified, editors may request research data, interview documentation, analytical materials, ethical approval documents, consent records, or other evidence necessary to assess the integrity of a submission.

  6. Confidentiality and conflict management: Reviewers and editors must maintain confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief.

A concern identified through screening is not, by itself, proof of misconduct. Each case must be assessed individually.

4. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Any individual may report suspected research misconduct, including authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research participants, institutions, and members of the public.

Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact channel, using the subject line “Research Misconduct Allegation – [Manuscript ID or Article DOI]”.

A report should include, where available:

  • The manuscript ID, article title, DOI, or relevant publication details.

  • A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

  • Specific evidence or documentation supporting the allegation.

  • The name and contact details of the reporting individual, if provided.

  • Any relevant conflicts of interest or additional information that may assist the assessment.

Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable evidence.

The journal will handle reports confidentially and will not disclose the reporting individual's identity to the parties concerned without an appropriate basis. Individuals are encouraged not to publicise unverified allegations while the journal's assessment is ongoing.

Knowingly false or malicious allegations may be referred for appropriate action where justified by the available evidence.

5. Procedures for Handling Allegations

5.1 Suspected Misconduct Before Publication

When suspected misconduct is identified before publication, the journal follows these steps:

  1. Identification: The concern may be raised during editorial screening, peer review, production, or through a report from a third party.

  2. Temporary suspension: The Editor-in-Chief may suspend peer review or publication processing while the concern is assessed.

  3. Preliminary assessment: The editorial team evaluates whether the allegation is sufficiently specific, credible, and supported by relevant evidence.

  4. Author notification: The corresponding author is informed of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation and supporting documentation.

  5. Evaluation: The editorial team considers the available evidence and the author's response, seeking independent expert advice where necessary.

  6. Editorial decision: Depending on the findings, the journal may resume the process, request corrections or revisions, reject the manuscript, or take further action.

  7. Institutional referral: Serious or unresolved allegations may be referred to the relevant institution, research integrity office, funder, or other competent authority.

  8. Confidential documentation: The journal maintains a confidential record of the allegation, assessment, correspondence, and decision.

5.2 Suspected Misconduct After Publication

When an allegation concerns an already published article, the journal follows these steps:

  1. Acknowledgement: The journal acknowledges receipt of the allegation through its official communication channel.

  2. Preliminary assessment: The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the concern falls within the journal's remit and is supported by sufficiently specific evidence.

  3. Evidence review: Relevant publication records, research materials, correspondence, and other available evidence are examined.

  4. Author response: The author or authors are invited to respond and may be asked to provide supporting materials within a reasonable period.

  5. Evaluation and consultation: The journal evaluates the response and may consult independent experts or the relevant editorial board members.

  6. Institutional referral: Where serious concerns remain unresolved, the journal may request an investigation by the authors' institution or another competent authority.

  7. Editorial action: Depending on the evidence, the journal may take no further action, publish a correction, issue an expression of concern, or retract the article.

  8. Notification: Relevant parties are informed of the decision, subject to confidentiality requirements and applicable procedures.

The journal may publish an expression of concern when substantial doubts remain about an article's reliability and a conclusive investigation cannot be completed within a reasonable period.

Retractions and corrections are intended to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record, not to punish authors. Any notice will clearly identify the affected article and explain the reasons for the action.

6. Allegations Involving Reviewers or Editors

Allegations concerning reviewers or editors are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately independent editorial authority.

If an allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the case will be referred to an uninvolved senior editorial board member or the journal's publisher for independent assessment.

The individual concerned must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process relating to their own case. Where misconduct is established, the journal may remove the individual from the relevant editorial or reviewer role, disregard an affected review, notify the relevant institution, or take other proportionate action.

Manuscripts submitted by editors must be handled independently by another editor, and the submitting editor must not influence or access confidential aspects of the review process beyond what is appropriate for an author.

7. Possible Outcomes and Sanctions

Depending on the seriousness, intent, evidence, and recurrence of the misconduct, possible outcomes include:

  1. Closure of the case where the allegation is unsubstantiated.

  2. A formal explanation or guidance concerning publication ethics.

  3. A request for correction or clarification before the editorial process continues.

  4. Rejection of the submitted manuscript.

  5. Publication of a correction, erratum, or corrigendum.

  6. Publication of an expression of concern.

  7. Retraction of a published article when justified by the evidence.

  8. Notification of the relevant institution, research integrity office, funder, or other journal or publisher where appropriate.

  9. Temporary suspension of submission privileges for serious or repeated misconduct, subject to a documented decision.

  10. Removal of a reviewer or editor from their role or the journal's reviewer database where appropriate.

The journal will determine the appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. No sanction will be imposed solely on the basis of an unverified allegation.

8. Appeals

Authors or other directly affected parties may appeal an editorial decision concerning an allegation of research misconduct by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact channel.

An appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant new evidence, procedural concerns, or substantive arguments. Appeals will be reviewed by an editor or other appropriate individual who was not materially involved in the original decision, where practicable.

The journal will communicate the outcome of the appeal to the relevant parties. An appeal does not automatically suspend necessary measures to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Confidentiality and Record Keeping

All allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, author responses, and editorial decisions are handled confidentially and retained in accordance with the journal's record-management practices and applicable legal requirements.

Information is shared only with individuals or institutions that need it to assess, investigate, or resolve the allegation. Public disclosure of an allegation or the identity of the parties involved will be avoided unless justified by the findings, necessary to correct the scholarly record, or required by applicable law.

The journal aims to handle all cases fairly, consistently, and promptly while respecting the rights of the reporting individual, the author or authors concerned, and other parties involved.

10. Reference Guidelines

This policy is informed by the publication ethics guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including its Core Practices, guidance on suspected publication misconduct, and retraction guidance.

For further information, please consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and its Retraction Guidelines.

Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik may revise this policy as necessary to reflect developments in publication ethics, research integrity standards, and applicable regulations.