Research Misconduct Policy

BIOMA is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity and publication ethics. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct and unacceptable publication practices seriously, whether they arise before or after publication. Allegations are assessed fairly, objectively, and confidentially, in accordance with the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy defines research misconduct, outlines measures to prevent and detect misconduct, establishes procedures for handling allegations, and describes the actions that may be taken when misconduct is suspected or confirmed.

BIOMA recognises that research institutions are primarily responsible for investigating the conduct of their researchers, while the journal is responsible for maintaining the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record. BIOMA therefore cooperates with relevant institutions and other appropriate organisations when necessary.

1. Definitions of Research Misconduct

1.1. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to practices that depart from accepted standards of responsible research and may compromise the reliability, validity, originality, or attribution of scientific findings. Such practices include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Fabrication

Fabrication involves making up data, observations, experimental results, specimens, or other research information and presenting them as genuine. Examples include inventing ecological observations, laboratory measurements, biological specimens, or experimental results that were never obtained.

b. Falsification

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, data, images, or results, or selectively omitting information in a manner that misrepresents the research. Examples include inappropriately altering scientific images, manipulating experimental measurements, selectively excluding data without scientific justification, or misrepresenting biological observations.

c. Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves using another person's ideas, words, data, images, methods, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgement. It includes verbatim copying, inadequate paraphrasing without citation, unattributed translation, and the use of unpublished research materials without permission or proper attribution.

Honest errors and genuine differences in scientific interpretation do not, by themselves, constitute research misconduct. However, errors that affect the reliability of published findings may still require correction or retraction, regardless of whether misconduct is established.

1.2. Other Unacceptable Research and Publication Practices

BIOMA also considers the following practices to be potential breaches of research or publication integrity:

a. Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing the same or substantially overlapping research findings in more than one publication without appropriate disclosure and justification.

b. Simultaneous submission: Submitting the same manuscript to BIOMA and another journal at the same time.

c. Inappropriate text recycling: Reusing substantial portions of previously published work without appropriate acknowledgement or justification.

d. Authorship misconduct: Including individuals who have not made qualifying contributions, excluding individuals who have made substantial contributions, misrepresenting author contributions, or changing authorship without the required agreement.

e. Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests that could influence the research, its interpretation, or the publication process.

f. Research ethics violations: Conducting research without required ethical approval or informed consent, where applicable, or failing to comply with relevant requirements for animal welfare, biodiversity research, specimen collection, or the handling of biological materials.

g. Citation manipulation: Inappropriately increasing citation counts through excessive self-citation, coercive citation requests, or citation practices that do not serve legitimate scholarly purposes.

h. Peer-review manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, manipulating reviewer recommendations, attempting to review one's own work, or otherwise compromising the independence and integrity of peer review.

i. Paper mills and fraudulent manuscripts: Buying or selling manuscripts or authorship, submitting fabricated research, or participating in organised activities intended to produce or publish fraudulent scholarly work.

j. Inappropriate use of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Using AI tools to fabricate data, results, references, or other research evidence; misrepresenting AI-generated content as verified research; listing AI tools as authors; or failing to disclose AI use when required by the journal's applicable policy.

k. Misconduct by reviewers or editors: Breaching manuscript confidentiality, misusing unpublished information, failing to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, manipulating editorial decisions, or engaging in other practices that compromise the fairness and integrity of the publication process.

These categories are not exhaustive. BIOMA may assess other practices when credible evidence indicates that they could compromise research integrity or the reliability of the scholarly record.

2. Prevention and Detection

BIOMA takes reasonable measures to prevent and identify potential research and publication misconduct throughout the submission, peer-review, and publication processes.

2.1. Author Declarations

Authors are expected to ensure that submitted manuscripts are original, accurately reported, and prepared in accordance with the journal's policies. During submission, authors may be required to confirm that:

the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another journal;
all listed authors have made appropriate contributions and approved the submitted version;
the sources of data, ideas, images, and other materials are properly acknowledged;
relevant research ethics approvals and permissions have been obtained;
funding sources and potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed; and
any use of generative AI or other relevant tools has been disclosed in accordance with BIOMA's applicable policy.

2.2. Editorial Screening

Editors may conduct preliminary checks to identify potential concerns, including text similarity, overlapping publications, questionable references, inconsistencies in data, inappropriate image manipulation, suspected fabricated results, and other indicators of potentially unreliable research.

Similarity reports are assessed in context. A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism, and a low score does not necessarily exclude it. Editors consider the nature, extent, source, and context of any identified overlap.

Where necessary, BIOMA may request original data, laboratory records, field notes, specimen documentation, analytical outputs, research protocols, ethical approval documents, or other supporting materials to assess the reliability and integrity of a submission.

2.3. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Authors must report their findings honestly and respond appropriately to editorial queries. Reviewers and editors must maintain confidentiality, declare relevant conflicts of interest, and notify the journal of credible concerns regarding research integrity or publication ethics.

3. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

3.1. Who May Submit a Report?

Allegations may be raised by anyone with relevant information, including authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, funding bodies, or members of the public.

3.2. How to Report a Concern

Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through the official contact channel provided on the BIOMA journal website. A report should include, where available:

the manuscript identification number, article title, or DOI;
a clear description of the suspected misconduct;
relevant supporting evidence, such as overlapping text, data comparisons, image comparisons, or documentation; and
the reporter's contact details and any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

3.3. Confidentiality and Protection of Reporters

BIOMA handles allegations confidentially and limits access to information to individuals who need it to assess or investigate the case. The identity of a person reporting a concern will be protected as far as reasonably possible and consistent with applicable legal and procedural requirements.

Allegations should not be publicised while they are being assessed. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves be treated as a breach of publication ethics.

4. Procedures for Handling Allegations

BIOMA assesses each case according to the nature of the allegation, the available evidence, the stage of publication, and any applicable institutional or legal requirements. Authors must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse conclusion is reached, except where immediate action is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

4.1. Suspected Misconduct in Submitted Manuscripts

When a concern arises before publication, BIOMA may follow these steps:

Initial assessment. The editor evaluates whether the allegation is relevant, specific, and supported by sufficient preliminary evidence.
Temporary suspension. Where necessary, peer review or editorial processing is paused while the concern is assessed.
Evidence review. The editor examines the available information and may consult an editorial board member or an independent subject specialist.
Author response. The corresponding author is contacted and invited to provide an explanation and relevant supporting evidence. Other authors may also be contacted where appropriate.
Editorial assessment. The editor evaluates the response and determines whether the concern can be resolved, requires revision, or warrants referral to an institution.
Decision. Depending on the findings, BIOMA may resume the editorial process, request corrections or clarification, reject the manuscript, or refer the matter to the relevant institution or other appropriate body.
Documentation. The concern, evidence, communications, and editorial decision are recorded confidentially.

Serious concerns, including suspected fabrication, falsification, substantial plagiarism, fraudulent authorship, or deliberate manipulation of peer review, may result in rejection and referral to the relevant institution.

4.2. Suspected Misconduct in Published Articles

When a concern relates to an article already published in BIOMA, the journal may follow these steps:

Receipt of allegation. The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor acknowledges and records the concern.
Preliminary assessment. The editor evaluates the credibility of the allegation and the potential effect on the article's reliability, validity, or attribution.
Evidence gathering. Relevant evidence is reviewed, and independent expert advice may be sought where necessary.
Consultation with authors. The authors are invited to respond and, where appropriate, provide supporting data, research records, or other documentation.
Institutional referral. Where the concern is serious, remains unresolved, or requires a formal investigation, BIOMA may contact the authors' institution(s), research integrity office, or other relevant organisation.
Interim action. If substantial concerns remain while an investigation is ongoing, BIOMA may publish an Expression of Concern to inform readers, where appropriate.
Editorial decision. Based on the available evidence and any relevant institutional findings, the journal determines whether no further action is required or whether a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction is appropriate.
Publication and documentation. Any formal notice is linked to the affected article, and the case is documented confidentially.

BIOMA may take action to correct the scholarly record when sufficient evidence demonstrates that published findings are unreliable, even if an institutional investigation has not established misconduct or has concluded that an error was unintentional.

4.3. Allegations Involving Reviewers or Editors

Allegations concerning reviewers are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor without a conflict of interest. Allegations concerning the Editor-in-Chief must be handled independently by an appropriate senior editorial representative or the publisher.

Where necessary, BIOMA may disregard a compromised review, appoint alternative reviewers, remove an individual from editorial duties, or refer the matter to the relevant institution. Individuals who are the subject of an allegation must not participate in decisions concerning their own case.

4.4. Cooperation with Research Institutions

BIOMA recognises that formal investigations into researchers' conduct are generally the responsibility of their institutions or employers. The journal may request institutional assistance when allegations require access to research records, resolution of authorship or data ownership disputes, or a formal assessment of possible misconduct.

BIOMA will cooperate with appropriate institutional investigations and provide relevant evidence where permitted. Institutions may be asked to communicate findings that affect the reliability or attribution of published work.

Where multiple institutions or journals are involved, BIOMA may cooperate with the relevant parties to clarify responsibilities and coordinate appropriate action. Information will be shared only as necessary and in accordance with confidentiality, privacy, and applicable legal requirements.

5. Possible Outcomes and Editorial Actions

Actions taken by BIOMA will be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern, the strength of the evidence, its effect on the scholarly record, and whether the conduct appears intentional or repeated.

Depending on the circumstances, possible outcomes include:

No further action where the allegation is not substantiated.
A request for clarification or additional supporting evidence.
A request for revision to correct minor errors or inadequate attribution.
Rejection of a submitted manuscript.
Referral to the relevant research institution, employer, or funding body.
Publication of a correction when specific parts of an article require amendment.
Publication of an Expression of Concern when significant questions about an article remain unresolved.
Retraction of an article when its findings are unreliable or other grounds for retraction are established.
Notification of other relevant journals or publishers when necessary to address related publication concerns.
Restrictions on future submissions or participation in peer review, where justified by serious or repeated misconduct and consistent with applicable policies.

BIOMA will not impose sanctions solely because an allegation has been made. Decisions must be based on the available evidence and the circumstances of the case.

6. Corrections and Retractions

BIOMA is committed to maintaining an accurate and reliable scholarly record. When an error or integrity concern affects a published article, the journal determines the appropriate response in accordance with the nature and extent of the problem and relevant COPE guidance.

Correction: Used when a limited error can be corrected and the overall findings and conclusions remain reliable.
Expression of Concern: Used when serious concerns about an article remain unresolved or an investigation is ongoing and readers need to be informed.
Retraction: Considered when the findings are unreliable because of major errors or misconduct, or when other recognised grounds for retraction apply.

Formal notices should explain the reason for the action clearly and be linked to the affected article. The published record must not be silently altered. Where appropriate, the authors' responses and relevant institutional findings will be considered, but the final editorial decision regarding publication notices rests with BIOMA.

7. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Appeals

BIOMA aims to handle all allegations fairly, consistently, and without unnecessary delay.

Allegations are assessed on evidence rather than reputation, personal relationships, or assumptions.
Authors are given a reasonable opportunity to respond and provide relevant evidence.
Information about an ongoing case is kept confidential, subject to applicable legal and procedural requirements.
Editors and reviewers with relevant conflicts of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision.
The journal distinguishes deliberate misconduct from honest error while recognising that either may require action to correct the scholarly record.
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision related to an allegation should submit a reasoned explanation and any relevant new evidence through the journal's official contact channel. Appeals will be considered by an appropriate editor who was not involved in the original decision, where practicable.

BIOMA maintains confidential records of allegations, supporting evidence, communications, and decisions in accordance with applicable institutional policies and data protection requirements.

8. Policy Review and Related Policies

This policy should be read alongside BIOMA's Publication Ethics, Plagiarism, Authorship and Contributorship, Conflict of Interest, Peer Review, Generative AI, and Correction and Retraction policies, where applicable.

BIOMA may update this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, COPE guidance, and relevant institutional or legal requirements.

Reporting concerns: Allegations of research misconduct should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through the official contact details provided on the BIOMA journal website.