Allegation of research misconduct

Research Misconduct Policy

Jurnal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Madani (JPMM) 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).

Guiding Principles

  1. Allegations are assessed on evidence, not on reputation or assumptions.
  2. Authors are presumed to have acted in good faith until evidence shows otherwise and are always given the opportunity to respond.
  3. Whistle-blowers acting in good faith are protected, and their identity is kept confidential.
  4. The journal does not investigate misconduct itself; it assesses the evidence, contacts authors, and refers cases to responsible institutions if necessary.
  5. Actions are proportionate and aim to correct the scholarly record.

Part 1. Definitions

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.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, images, or quotations so that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, or work without proper acknowledgement (including translation plagiarism).

Other Unacceptable Practices Include:

  • Redundant Publication & Simultaneous Submission: Publishing the same work in multiple outlets or submitting to multiple journals simultaneously.
  • Authorship Misconduct: Gift authorship, ghost authorship, or removing authors without agreement.
  • Ethical Violations: Conducting research without ethical approval, breaching confidentiality, or exposing vulnerable participants to harm.
  • Manipulation: Citation manipulation (citation stacking) or peer-review manipulation (fake reviewers).
  • Inappropriate AI Use: Using AI to generate data/results or submitting AI-generated text with fabricated citations.

Part 2. Prevention and Detection

  • Author Declarations: Authors confirm originality, conflict of interest disclosure, and ethical approval at submission.
  • Similarity Check: Every manuscript is screened with similarity-detection software (e.g., Turnitin). The maximum accepted similarity is 20% overall, with no single match above 1%.
  • Identity Checks: The journal verifies authors' and reviewers' institutional email addresses.
  • Editorial Checks: Editors check for data anomalies, non-existent references, tortured phrases, and paper-mill activities.
  • Data on Request: Editors may ask authors to provide raw data, transcripts, or ethics documents at any stage.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers and editors must keep manuscripts confidential and declare conflicts of interest.

Part 3. Reporting an Allegation

Anyone may report suspected misconduct by emailing the Editor-in-Chief directly through the journal website using the subject line: "Research integrity concern - [manuscript ID or article DOI]".

Please include the article title/DOI, a clear description of the issue, and specific verifiable evidence. Anonymous reports are considered if they contain specific evidence. Bad-faith allegations (knowingly false) are treated as misconduct.

Part 4. Procedures for Handling Allegations

Before Publication: If identified during peer review, the process is paused. Editors gather evidence within 14 days and contact the corresponding author for an explanation. If the problem is serious or the response is unsatisfactory, the manuscript is rejected and institutional reporting may occur.

After Publication: The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report within 7 working days. If credible, authors are given 30 days to provide raw data and explanations. If unsatisfactory, the editors will contact the authors' institutions. Depending on the findings, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or retract the article.

Against Reviewers/Editors: Handled independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a senior editorial board member. If confirmed, the individual is removed from the journal's database.

Part 5. Outcomes and Sanctions

Actions are proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. Sanctions may include:

  • Required revision or rejection of the manuscript.
  • A correction, expression of concern, or formal retraction of a published article.
  • A formal letter to the authors' institution or funding body.
  • A ban on submissions from the author(s) for a set period (normally two to five years) for serious/repeated misconduct.

Part 6. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Appeals

  • Information is shared only on a need-to-know basis. Authors are not publicly identified unless misconduct is formally established via a retraction notice.
  • Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days with new evidence. Appeals are considered by an independent editor, and the decision on appeal is final.
  • The journal keeps confidential records of all cases for at least five years.