Research Misconduct

Communications is committed to the highest standards of research integrity. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously, whether they arise before or after publication, and handles them fairly, confidentially, and in line with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy:

• defines research misconduct and other questionable practices;
• explains how the journal prevents and detects them;
• sets out step-by-step procedures for handling allegations;
• describes the possible outcomes and sanctions.

Part 1. Definitions

1.1 Research misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.

• Fabrication: making up data, participants, interviews, sources, or results and recording or reporting them as genuine.
• Falsification: manipulating research materials, procedures, data, images, or quotations, or omitting data or results selectively, so that the research is not accurately represented. Examples include altering interview excerpts or survey responses, or reporting only the findings that fit the hypothesis.
• Plagiarism: using another person’s ideas, words, data, or work without proper acknowledgement. This includes:
  • verbatim copying;
  • paraphrasing without citation;
  • translation plagiarism (translating another author’s work, e.g., from Indonesian into English, without attribution);
  • presenting others’ unpublished work as one’s own.

1.2 Other unacceptable publication practices

• Duplicate (redundant) publication: publishing the same or substantially overlapping work, data, or findings in more than one outlet without disclosure and cross-reference.
• Simultaneous submission: submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
• Self-plagiarism and text recycling: reusing substantial parts of one’s own published text without citation, beyond accepted reuse of brief methodological descriptions.
• Salami slicing: dividing one study into several minimal publications without justification or disclosure.
• Authorship misconduct: including people who did not contribute substantially (gift or guest authorship), excluding people who did (ghost authorship), or adding or removing authors without the agreement of all authors.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to declare financial, institutional, political, or personal interests that could influence the research or its interpretation.
• Ethical violations in research with human participants:
  • conducting research without the required ethical approval or informed consent;
  • breaching confidentiality or anonymity;
  • exposing vulnerable participants (e.g., minors, students, minorities, or migrants) to harm.
• Citation manipulation: excessive self-citation, citation stacking, or coercive citation that serves to raise citation metrics rather than scholarly purposes.
• Peer-review manipulation: suggesting fake reviewers, reviewing one’s own work, or other attempts to compromise the review process.
• Paper mills and fraudulent manuscripts:
  • buying, selling, or brokering manuscripts or authorship;
  • submitting fabricated or mass-produced papers;
  • using “tortured phrases” or text-spinning tools to disguise plagiarism.
• Inappropriate use of generative AI:
  • failing to disclose AI use;
  • listing AI tools as authors;
  • using AI to generate data, results, interview content, or references;
  • submitting AI-generated text that contains fabricated or non-existent citations.
• Misconduct by reviewers or editors:
  • breaching the confidentiality of manuscripts;
  • using unpublished information for personal advantage;
  • uploading manuscripts to AI tools without permission;
  • failing to declare conflicts of interest;
  • making biased or unfounded assessments.

Part 2. Prevention and Detection

• Author declarations: at submission, authors confirm originality, the agreement of all authors, disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding, ethics approval and informed consent, and any use of generative AI. Contributions are stated using CRediT roles.
• Similarity check: every manuscript is screened with similarity-detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate/Crossref Similarity Check) before review and again before publication. The editors look at the overall similarity score, the largest single-source match, and the nature of the overlap, judging each report case by case. The maximum accepted similarity is 20% overall (excluding references), with no single match above 1% (the percentage shown for each matched source in the similarity report). Manuscripts above these limits are examined by an editor and handled as set out in the journal’s Plagiarism Policy. However, a low score does not rule out plagiarism, and a high score is not proof of it.
• Editorial checks: the editors check for:
  • image or data anomalies;
  • inconsistent or implausible data;
  • non-existent or irrelevant references;
  • tortured phrases;
  • signs of paper-mill activity;
  • overlap with the authors’ previous publications.
• Identity checks: the journal verifies authors’ and reviewers’ institutional email addresses and ORCID iDs. Reviewers suggested by authors are checked independently before invitation.
• Data on request: the editors may ask authors to provide raw data, interview transcripts (anonymised), questionnaires, coding frames, or ethics approval documents at any stage.
• Reviewer and editor obligations: reviewers and editors must keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts of interest, and report any suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief.

Part 3. Reporting an Allegation

• Who may report: anyone, including readers, reviewers, editors, co-authors, institutions, and members of the public.
• How to report: email the Editor-in-Chief directly through the journal website, using the subject line “Research integrity concern – [manuscript ID or article DOI]”. Please include:
  • the manuscript ID or the article title and DOI;
  • a clear description of the suspected misconduct;
  • specific evidence (e.g., overlapping passages with their sources, similarity reports, data or image comparisons, or documents);
  • your name and contact details, and any conflict of interest you may have.
• Anonymous reports are considered if they contain specific, verifiable evidence.
• Confidentiality: the whistle-blower’s identity is not disclosed to the authors without consent. Allegations should not be made public while the case is under consideration.
• Bad-faith allegations: allegations that are knowingly false or malicious are themselves treated as misconduct.

Part 4. Procedures for Handling Allegations

4.1 Suspected misconduct in a submitted manuscript (before publication)

1. Identification. A concern is raised by the similarity check, an editor, a reviewer, or a third party.
2. Review process paused. The handling editor suspends peer review or production and informs the Editor-in-Chief.
3. Evidence gathering. Within 14 days, the editors document the evidence, for example by annotating the similarity report, comparing texts or data, and checking references and authors’ previous publications. They may consult an editorial board member or an independent expert.
4. Assessment of seriousness. The editors distinguish:
   • minor problems, such as limited text overlap, missing citations, or poor paraphrasing that looks like a misunderstanding;
   • serious problems, such as substantial plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate submission, or paper-mill indicators.
5. Contacting the authors. The editor writes to the corresponding author (copying all authors where appropriate), describing the concern neutrally, enclosing the evidence, and asking for an explanation within 14–30 days. The whistle-blower is not identified.
6. Evaluation of the response.
   • If the explanation is satisfactory, review resumes.
   • If there is a minor problem, the manuscript is returned for revision with clear instructions (e.g., rewrite and cite properly). The authors are reminded of the journal’s policies.
   • If there is a serious problem, or the response is unsatisfactory, or there is no response, the manuscript is rejected. Further actions are considered (Step 7).
7. Further actions in serious cases. The editors may inform the authors’ institution(s), the integrity office, or the funder, and alert other journals in cases of duplicate submission. They may also apply the sanctions in Part 5.
8. Record. The case and decision are documented confidentially, and the person who raised the concern is told that the matter has been addressed.

4.2 Suspected misconduct in a published article

1. Receipt and acknowledgement. The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report within 7 working days.
2. Preliminary assessment. Within 14 days, the editors decide whether the allegation is credible, specific, and within the journal’s remit. If it is not, the case is closed and the reporter is informed.
3. Evidence gathering. The editors compile and verify the evidence and may seek advice from independent experts or the editorial board, while maintaining confidentiality.
4. Contacting the authors. The editor asks the corresponding author (and all authors where appropriate) for an explanation and supporting materials, such as raw data, transcripts, or ethics documents, within 30 days.
5. Evaluation of the response.
   • If the explanation is satisfactory, the case is closed.
   • If the problem is an honest error, a correction is published (see the Post-publication Discussions and Corrections policy).
   • If the explanation is unsatisfactory, or the authors do not respond, the case is escalated (Step 6).
6. Referral to institutions. The editor asks the authors’ institution(s) to investigate and share their findings. If the authors do not respond, the editor makes repeated attempts to contact them, and then contacts their institutions. The journal cooperates fully with institutional investigations.
7. Interim notice. If the investigation is lengthy or inconclusive, or the institution does not respond, the editors may publish an Expression of Concern.
8. Decision. Based on the evidence and any institutional findings, the editors decide whether to take no action, publish a correction, retract the article, or (exceptionally) remove it. For complex cases, they may seek advice from COPE.
9. Publication of the notice. Any notice is published with its own DOI, linked to the article, and shared with Crossref and the indexing databases.
10. Closure. The authors, the whistle-blower, and (where involved) the institutions are informed of the outcome. The case file is kept confidentially.

4.3 Allegations against reviewers or editors

• Concerns about a reviewer are handled by the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewer is asked to explain. Where misconduct is confirmed, the reviewer is removed from the reviewer database, the affected review is disregarded, and, where relevant, the reviewer’s institution is informed.
• Concerns about an editor are handled by the Editor-in-Chief. Concerns about the Editor-in-Chief are handled by a senior member of the editorial board or by the publisher, the Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. The person concerned takes no part in handling the case.
• Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled independently by another editor, and the editor-author has no access to the review process.

Part 5. Outcomes and Sanctions

Actions are proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct, whether it was intentional, and whether it was repeated. One or more of the following may apply:

1. No action, if the allegation is not substantiated.
2. A letter of explanation and education to the authors, where there is a minor problem or a misunderstanding of good practice.
3. Required revision before review continues.
4. Rejection of the manuscript.
5. A correction (erratum or corrigendum) to a published article.
6. An expression of concern.
7. Retraction of a published article, with a notice stating the reason.
8. A formal letter to the authors’ institution(s), integrity office, or funding body.
9. A ban on submissions from the author(s) for a set period (normally two to five years, depending on severity) for serious or repeated misconduct.
10. Removal of a reviewer or editor from the reviewer database or editorial board.
11. Notification of other affected journals or publishers, such as in cases of duplicate submission or paper-mill activity.

Part 6. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Records

• Information about a case is shared only with those who need to know it.
• Authors are not publicly identified as having committed misconduct unless the misconduct has been established and a public notice is necessary to correct the record.
• Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, with new evidence or arguments. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. The decision on appeal is final.
• The journal keeps confidential records of all cases for at least five years.

Sources

• ALL European Academies. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (Revised ed.). https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Retraction guidelines (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). Authorship and AI tools: COPE position statement. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts [Plagiarism, fabricated data, redundant publication, authorship, reviewer misconduct, and paper mills]. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts
• Committee on Publication Ethics & STM. (2022). Paper mills: Research report from COPE & STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL
• Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
• World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement
• Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 72(2), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.03.011