Research Misconduct

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Ilmiah Sport Coaching and Education (JSCE), Universitas Negeri Jakarta, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity and publication ethics. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously, whether they arise before or after publication, and handles them fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with recognized publication-ethics principles, including the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the submission, review, and publication process.

The policy establishes the definitions of research misconduct, preventive and detection measures, procedures for handling allegations, and possible editorial actions or sanctions.

Guiding Principles

JSCE follows these principles when handling suspected research misconduct:

  1. Allegations are assessed on the basis of evidence rather than reputation, institutional affiliation, academic position, or assumptions.
  2. Individuals are given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations before an editorial decision is made.
  3. Individuals who report concerns in good faith are treated fairly, and their identities are kept confidential to the extent reasonably possible.
  4. The journal assesses the available evidence and may refer cases to the relevant institutions for formal investigation. The journal does not replace the investigative authority of universities, research institutions, or other competent bodies.
  5. Editorial actions must be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct and should protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Definitions of Research Misconduct

2.1 Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Honest errors and genuine differences of scholarly opinion do not, by themselves, constitute research misconduct.

Fabrication refers to inventing data, participants, observations, interviews, sources, or research results and reporting them as genuine.

Examples in sport coaching and sport science include inventing athlete fitness-test scores, creating fictitious participant records, fabricating intervention results, or reporting experiments that were never conducted.

Falsification refers to manipulating research materials, procedures, data, images, or results, or selectively omitting information so that the research is inaccurately represented.

Examples include altering athlete performance measurements, manipulating video-analysis results, changing questionnaire responses, selectively excluding test results without justification, or presenting only findings that support a research hypothesis.

Plagiarism refers to using another person's ideas, words, data, methods, or work without appropriate acknowledgment. It includes verbatim copying, inadequate paraphrasing without citation, translation plagiarism, and presenting another person's unpublished work as one's own.

Translation of an Indonesian-language manuscript or research report into English does not remove the obligation to acknowledge the original source.

2.2 Other Unacceptable Publication Practices

JSCE also considers the following practices unacceptable:

  • Duplicate or redundant publication: publishing the same or substantially overlapping research, data, or findings in more than one publication without appropriate disclosure.
  • Simultaneous submission: submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time.
  • Self-plagiarism and text recycling: reusing substantial portions of one's previously published work without appropriate acknowledgment or justification.
  • Salami slicing: dividing a single research project into multiple publications without adequate scientific justification or disclosure.
  • Authorship misconduct: including individuals who have not made qualifying contributions, excluding legitimate contributors, or changing the author list without the required agreement.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to disclose financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests that may influence the research or its interpretation.
  • Research-ethics violations: conducting research involving human participants without required ethical approval or informed consent, breaching confidentiality, or exposing participants to unnecessary harm.
  • Citation manipulation: excessive self-citation, coercive citation, or citation practices intended primarily to manipulate journal or author metrics.
  • Peer-review manipulation: providing false reviewer identities, recommending inappropriate reviewers with undisclosed conflicts, attempting to review one's own work, or otherwise compromising the independence of peer review.
  • Paper mills and fraudulent manuscripts: purchasing or selling manuscripts or authorship, submitting fabricated research, or using text-spinning techniques to disguise plagiarism.
  • Inappropriate use of generative AI: listing AI systems as authors, failing to disclose AI use when required, fabricating research data or references using AI, or submitting AI-generated material containing false or unverifiable information.
  • Misconduct by reviewers or editors: breaching manuscript confidentiality, exploiting unpublished information, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, or conducting biased or otherwise unethical reviews.

2.3 Research Involving Athletes and Human Participants

Research involving athletes, coaches, students, children, adolescents, and other human participants must comply with applicable research-ethics requirements.

Potential violations include:

  • conducting research without required ethics approval;
  • failing to obtain informed consent or parental/guardian consent where applicable;
  • failing to obtain participant assent when required;
  • collecting or publishing identifiable participant information without appropriate authorization;
  • exposing participants to unjustified physical or psychological risks;
  • misrepresenting training or testing procedures; and
  • failing to protect confidential health, fitness, or performance data.

Authors must accurately report the procedures used to protect participants and comply with applicable institutional and ethical requirements.

3. Prevention and Detection

JSCE applies preventive and editorial screening measures to identify potential research-integrity concerns.

3.1 Author Declarations

At submission, authors are expected to confirm that:

  • the manuscript is original and is not under consideration elsewhere;
  • all listed authors have approved the submitted version;
  • authorship reflects genuine contributions;
  • relevant funding and conflicts of interest have been disclosed;
  • research ethics approval and informed consent have been obtained where required;
  • data and results have been reported accurately; and
  • the use of generative AI has been disclosed in accordance with journal policy.

Author contributions should be reported using the CRediT taxonomy where required by JSCE.

3.2 Similarity Screening

Manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software, such as Turnitin or iThenticate/Crossref Similarity Check, before peer review and, where appropriate, before publication.

The editorial team evaluates the overall similarity score, individual source matches, and the nature of the overlapping material.

The proposed screening threshold is a maximum overall similarity of 20%, excluding references, with no individual source match exceeding 1%. These thresholds are screening criteria rather than automatic proof of plagiarism. The Editor may consider legitimate overlap, standard methodological descriptions, quotations, references, and other relevant circumstances.

A low similarity score does not necessarily rule out plagiarism, while a high score does not automatically establish misconduct.

3.3 Editorial Checks

Editors may examine manuscripts for:

  • inconsistent or implausible data;
  • unusual patterns in statistical results;
  • questionable or manipulated images and figures;
  • discrepancies between reported methods and results;
  • irrelevant, inaccurate, or non-existent references;
  • substantial overlap with previous publications;
  • signs of fabricated or mass-produced manuscripts; and
  • discrepancies between the manuscript and the available supporting data.

For sport science research, these checks may include the consistency of athlete measurements, physical fitness-test results, intervention records, participant numbers, statistical analyses, tables, figures, and video-based performance assessments.

3.4 Author and Reviewer Verification

JSCE may verify authors' and reviewers' institutional affiliations, email addresses, ORCID iDs, and other relevant professional information.

Reviewers suggested by authors may be independently assessed before invitation.

3.5 Research Data and Supporting Documents

At any stage of the editorial process, JSCE may request supporting materials reasonably necessary to assess research integrity, including:

  • anonymized raw data;
  • questionnaires and measurement instruments;
  • testing or intervention protocols;
  • statistical analysis outputs;
  • anonymized interview transcripts;
  • coding frameworks;
  • relevant ethics approval documents; and
  • explanations of data collection and analysis procedures.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests, subject to applicable confidentiality, privacy, and research-ethics requirements.

3.6 Reviewer and Editor Responsibilities

Reviewers and editors must maintain manuscript confidentiality, declare relevant conflicts of interest, and report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief.

Manuscripts must not be uploaded to external AI systems or other third-party services in ways that breach confidentiality, journal policy, or applicable data-protection requirements.

4. Reporting Research-Integrity Concerns

4.1 Who May Report

Research-integrity concerns may be reported by anyone, including readers, authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, funders, or members of the public.

4.2 How to Report

Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through the official JSCE journal website or the editorial contact channel published by the journal.

The subject line should read:

Research Integrity Concern – [Manuscript ID or Article DOI]

Where possible, the report should include:

  1. the manuscript ID, article title, or DOI;
  2. a clear description of the suspected misconduct;
  3. specific supporting evidence, such as overlapping passages, similarity reports, inconsistent data, image comparisons, or relevant documents; and
  4. the reporter's contact information and any relevant conflict of interest.

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

JSCE will protect the reporter's identity to the extent reasonably possible and will not disclose it to the authors without an appropriate basis or consent, except where disclosure is necessary under applicable legal or institutional requirements.

Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves be referred for appropriate action.

5. Procedures for Handling Allegations

5.1 Suspected Misconduct in a Submitted Manuscript

When potential misconduct is identified before publication, JSCE will generally follow these steps:

Step 1: Identification.
The concern may be raised through editorial screening, peer review, a report from a third party, or other credible evidence.

Step 2: Temporary Suspension.
The handling editor may pause peer review or publication processing and inform the Editor-in-Chief.

Step 3: Preliminary Assessment.
The editors examine the available evidence and determine whether further assessment is warranted. An independent expert or editorial board member may be consulted when appropriate.

Step 4: Assessment of Seriousness.
The editors distinguish between potentially minor issues, such as incomplete citations or limited text overlap, and serious concerns, such as substantial plagiarism, fabricated data, falsified results, duplicate submission, or fraudulent authorship.

Step 5: Contacting the Authors.
The corresponding author will normally be contacted with a neutral description of the concern and an opportunity to respond. Relevant supporting evidence may be provided, while protecting the reporter's identity where appropriate.

JSCE will normally allow 14–30 days for a response, depending on the complexity of the case.

Step 6: Evaluation of the Response.

  • If the explanation satisfactorily resolves the concern, the editorial process may resume.
  • If the problem is minor and correctable, the manuscript may be returned for revision.
  • If serious misconduct is substantiated, the explanation is unsatisfactory, or the authors fail to respond adequately, the manuscript may be rejected.

Step 7: Further Action.
For serious cases, JSCE may notify the authors' institution, research-integrity office, or funder where appropriate. Other affected journals may also be contacted in cases involving duplicate submission or related misconduct.

Step 8: Documentation.
The case and editorial decision will be documented and handled confidentially.

5.2 Suspected Misconduct in a Published Article

When an allegation concerns a published article, JSCE will generally follow these steps:

Step 1: Acknowledgment.
The Editor-in-Chief will normally acknowledge receipt of the report within seven working days.

Step 2: Preliminary Assessment.
The editors will assess whether the allegation is specific, credible, supported by evidence, and within the journal's responsibility. A preliminary assessment will normally be completed within 14 days, where practicable.

Step 3: Evidence Assessment.
The editors examine the evidence and may consult independent experts or the editorial board.

Step 4: Contacting the Authors.
The corresponding author and, where appropriate, the other authors will be asked to respond and provide relevant supporting information. A response period of approximately 30 days may be allowed, depending on the circumstances.

Step 5: Evaluation.

  • If the concern is resolved satisfactorily, the case may be closed.
  • If the problem is an honest error, a correction may be published.
  • If substantial concerns remain unresolved, the case may be referred to the relevant institution or other competent body.

Step 6: Institutional Referral.
JSCE may request an investigation by the authors' institution or institutions. The journal will cooperate with relevant investigations while maintaining appropriate confidentiality.

Step 7: Interim Notice.
If an investigation is prolonged, inconclusive, or delayed, JSCE may publish an Expression of Concern when necessary to alert readers to unresolved issues.

Step 8: Editorial Decision.
Based on the available evidence and any institutional findings, JSCE may take no further action, publish a correction, issue an Expression of Concern, retract the article, or exceptionally remove the article in accordance with its post-publication policy.

Step 9: Publication of Notice.
Where appropriate, a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction notice will be published and linked to the affected article. The notice will be assigned a DOI when supported by the journal's publishing system and DOI arrangements. Relevant metadata may be communicated to Crossref and indexing services.

Step 10: Closure.
The relevant parties and institutions will be informed of the outcome where appropriate. Records of the case will be maintained confidentially.

5.3 Allegations Against Reviewers or Editors

Concerns involving reviewers will be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor. Where misconduct is substantiated, JSCE may remove the reviewer from its reviewer database, disregard the affected review, and notify the relevant institution where appropriate.

Concerns involving an editor will be handled by an independent senior editor or another appropriate authority. Allegations concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an independent senior member of the editorial board or the journal's responsible institutional authority at Universitas Negeri Jakarta.

The person who is the subject of an allegation must not participate in investigating or deciding the case.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members must be handled independently by an editor without a conflict of interest. The submitting editor must not influence the reviewer-selection or editorial-decision process for their own manuscript.

6. Outcomes and Sanctions

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct, the available evidence, whether the conduct appears intentional, and whether the conduct is repeated.

Depending on the circumstances, JSCE may take one or more of the following actions:

  1. Take no action if the allegation is not substantiated.
  2. Provide an educational or explanatory communication for minor errors or misunderstandings.
  3. Require revision or additional documentation before the editorial process continues.
  4. Reject the submitted manuscript.
  5. Publish an erratum or corrigendum to correct a published article.
  6. Publish an Expression of Concern.
  7. Retract a published article, with a notice explaining the reason.
  8. In exceptional circumstances, remove an article in accordance with the journal's article-removal policy.
  9. Notify the author's institution, research-integrity office, or funding body where appropriate.
  10. Restrict submissions from an author for a defined period in serious or repeated cases, following a documented and proportionate editorial decision.
  11. Remove a reviewer or editor from the relevant journal role.
  12. Notify other affected journals or publishers where necessary.

Any restriction on future submissions must be based on substantiated evidence, communicated appropriately, and applied consistently with the journal's procedures.

7. Fairness, Confidentiality, Appeals, and Records

JSCE will handle allegations fairly and confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

  • Information concerning a case will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or resolve the matter.
  • Authors will not be publicly identified as having committed misconduct unless the allegation has been substantiated and public disclosure is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
  • Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to relevant concerns.
  • Reports will be assessed without discrimination based on academic position, seniority, institutional affiliation, or reputation.
  • Confidential records of cases and decisions will be maintained in accordance with applicable institutional requirements and data-protection obligations.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, normally within 30 days, explaining the grounds for appeal and providing any new evidence or arguments.

An appeal should be considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, wherever practicable. The appeal outcome will be communicated to the relevant parties.

JSCE will retain case records for an appropriate period, proposed as at least five years, subject to applicable institutional policies and legal requirements.

8. Related Policies

This policy should be read together with the following JSCE policies and guidelines:

  • Author Guidelines;
  • Authorship and Contributorship Policy;
  • Publication Ethics Policy;
  • Peer Review Policy;
  • Plagiarism Policy;
  • Generative AI Policy; and
  • Post-Publication Discussion, Corrections, Retractions, and Article Removal Policy.

9. References and Ethical Standards

This policy is informed by recognized research-integrity and publication-ethics guidance, including:

  • ALL European Academies. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Revised edition).
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI Tools: COPE Position Statement.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Flowcharts on Publication Ethics Issues.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics and STM. (2022). Paper Mills: Research Report from COPE & STM.
  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.
  • World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.
  • 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.