Allegation of research misconduct

Research Misconduct Allegations Policy

Pedagogik Journal of Islamic Elementary School is committed to research integrity and publication ethics. Allegations concerning submitted or published work are assessed fairly, confidentially, and on the basis of evidence, using relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance. Authors are given an opportunity to respond, and public notices are issued where needed to keep the scholarly record accurate.

1. Scope of Research and Publication Misconduct

The journal considers concerns that may compromise the accuracy, integrity, or ethical conduct of research and publication, including:

  • Data Fabrication and Falsification: Inventing data or results; manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or images; or omitting findings in a way that misrepresents the research.
  • Plagiarism, Text Recycling, and Duplicate Publication: Using others' ideas, text, or data without attribution; substantial undisclosed reuse of previously published material; or undisclosed redundant publication and simultaneous submission. Text overlap is assessed in context.
  • Ethics and Consent Breaches: Failing to obtain required ethics approval or exemption, informed consent or an approved waiver, or necessary safeguards for participants and their personal information.
  • Authorship Misconduct and Paper Mills: Omitting eligible authors, including ineligible authors, concealing significant writing assistance, buying or selling authorship, or submitting manuscripts supplied by paper mills.
  • Conflicts of Interest and Peer Review Manipulation: Failing to disclose relevant competing interests or manipulating editorial assessment through fabricated reviewer identities, coordinated citation manipulation, or other deceptive practices.

Fair Assessment: Honest errors and legitimate scholarly disagreements do not automatically constitute misconduct. However, errors that affect a published article must still be assessed for correction or retraction where appropriate.

2. Reporting Mechanism and Whistleblower Protection

Readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and other concerned parties may report suspected misconduct involving a manuscript under review or an article already published in the journal.

Contact Channel

Address the allegation to the Editor-in-Chief through the official editorial contact listed on the journal's Contact page. If the allegation concerns an editor, request independent handling by an unconflicted editor or the publisher.

Information and Supporting Evidence

Identify the manuscript or article by title, submission ID, DOI, or URL. Explain the concern and provide available evidence, such as text comparisons, source publications, image inconsistencies, or data anomalies. The editor may request clarification when the information is insufficient for assessment.

Confidentiality and Anonymous Reports

Reports are handled on a need-to-know basis, and reasonable measures are taken to protect complainants' identities. Information is shared only as necessary for assessment, institutional investigation, or legal obligations. Anonymous reports are assessed according to the specificity and credibility of their evidence. Retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith is not tolerated.

3. Assessment and Investigation Process

The journal applies a staged process informed by the relevant COPE guidance on responding to concerns. Anyone with a conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision.

Stage 1: Preliminary Assessment

Target: Within 7 calendar days of receiving the report.

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent designated editor reviews the concern and supporting material. Additional evidence may be requested. If the report does not establish grounds for further inquiry, the editor records the reasons and informs the complainant where contact details are available.

Stage 2: Author Response

Response period: 14 business days from the editorial notification.

The editor explains the concerns to the corresponding author and, where appropriate, the co-authors. Authors may be asked to provide an explanation, original data, analysis scripts, consent records, or ethics documentation through appropriate confidential channels. A justified extension may be granted.

Stage 3: Independent Editorial Assessment

The editor assesses the explanation and evidence. Independent subject experts or an ad hoc ethics panel may be consulted when needed. Their role is to advise on the reliability and ethical acceptability of the publication; formal institutional findings are sought where the matter requires a research misconduct investigation.

Stage 4: Institutional Referral and Editorial Action

Serious or unresolved concerns may be referred to the relevant institution, research integrity officer, or funding body. The journal follows up as necessary and takes editorial action based on the available evidence and the reliability of the work, including appropriate action while an institutional investigation is pending.

The initial time targets do not set a fixed deadline for completing complex investigations. Review or publication may be paused where necessary, and material delays are communicated to the parties as appropriate.

4. Outcomes and Corrective Actions

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent authorized editor determines an appropriate and proportionate outcome, records the reasons, and communicates the decision to the relevant parties.

No Substantiated Misconduct

If the evidence does not support the allegation, the case is closed and the relevant parties are informed. Any confirmed error in the published record is still corrected when necessary. An earlier public notice is updated to reflect the outcome.

Correction, Corrigendum, or Addendum

Errors or omissions that can be corrected without undermining the overall reliability of the work are addressed through an appropriate notice linked to the original article and DOI.

Expression of Concern

A linked Expression of Concern may alert readers to credible, substantial concerns while an investigation is delayed or remains inconclusive. The notice is updated when sufficient evidence becomes available.

Rejection or Retraction

An unpublished manuscript may be rejected when serious concerns are established. A published article may require retraction for unreliable findings, substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or a compromised review process. Retraction may also be necessary for major honest errors that invalidate the findings.

Evidence-Based Decisions: A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism or determine whether retraction is warranted. Editors assess the nature, extent, attribution, and impact of the overlap.

Retraction Procedure

Where retraction is necessary, the journal follows the relevant COPE Retraction Guidelines:

  1. The article remains available as part of the scholarly record unless exceptional legal or ethical circumstances require removal. Its online record is clearly marked as retracted, and the PDF is marked RETRACTED on every page.
  2. A freely accessible Notice of Retraction identifies the article, explains the reasons, and states who is issuing the notice. The article and notice are linked to one another.
  3. Where applicable, the journal updates the article's metadata and notifies its DOI registration agency and the indexing or archiving services that carry the article.

Further Editorial Handling

The journal prioritizes correction of the scholarly record and referral of substantiated misconduct to the relevant institutions. Future submissions are evaluated on their merits and may receive additional integrity checks where justified. Automatic author-based publication bans are not applied.