Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of Misconduct

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Agricultural Sciences (IJASC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, publication ethics, and editorial accountability. The journal recognizes that trust in scholarly publishing depends on the accuracy, originality, transparency, and reliability of the research record, as well as the fair treatment of authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other stakeholders.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for receiving, assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of research and publication misconduct involving manuscripts submitted to or articles published in IJASC. It applies to concerns raised before or after publication and covers allegations involving authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the research and publication process, as relevant to the circumstances.

IJASC takes credible allegations seriously, regardless of whether they are raised by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, research institutions, funding bodies, whistleblowers, or other interested parties. The journal will assess allegations objectively and proportionately, protect confidentiality where appropriate, provide relevant parties with a fair opportunity to respond, and take appropriate action to safeguard the scholarly record.

This policy has been developed with reference to the relevant Core Practices and formal guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its guidance on allegations of misconduct and cooperation between research institutions and journals in research integrity and publication misconduct cases. It also draws on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

The journal recognizes the distinction between an allegation, an indication of a potential problem, and a substantiated finding of misconduct. The receipt of an allegation does not establish wrongdoing. Editorial decisions will be based on available evidence, appropriate assessment, and the seriousness of the concern rather than on unsupported accusations or assumptions about intent.

IJASC is responsible for editorial processes and for protecting the integrity of the publications under its control. Research institutions and other competent bodies may have responsibility for investigating the conduct of researchers under their institutional procedures. Where appropriate, the journal will cooperate with these bodies while retaining responsibility for editorial decisions concerning its manuscripts and published articles.

Reference to COPE guidance does not imply that IJASC is endorsed, certified, or approved by COPE.

2. Description

2.1 Definition of research and publication misconduct

Research and publication misconduct refers to conduct that violates accepted standards of research integrity or responsible scholarly publishing and may compromise the reliability, originality, attribution, transparency, or ethical basis of research.

The assessment of suspected misconduct must take account of the nature of the alleged conduct, the available evidence, the context in which it occurred, its potential consequences, and the relevant ethical and editorial standards.

Not every error, disagreement, omission, or irregularity constitutes misconduct. Honest mistakes, reasonable differences in scientific interpretation, and good-faith disagreements should be distinguished from practices that materially compromise research integrity. Nevertheless, an honest error may still require correction if it affects the accuracy or reliability of a published article.

2.2 Types of misconduct

Allegations covered by this policy may include, but are not limited to, the following.

2.2.1 Fabrication and falsification of research

Fabrication involves making up data, observations, experiments, participants, or research results and presenting them as genuine.

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, images, analyses, or results, or omitting relevant information in a manner that misrepresents the research.

In agricultural sciences, concerns may involve fabricated field observations, invented experimental results, manipulated crop-yield measurements, falsified laboratory findings, altered soil or plant analyses, or misleading representations of agricultural experiments.

2.2.2 Plagiarism and inappropriate reuse of material

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, data, methods, images, tables, figures, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate attribution.

Related concerns may include substantial text recycling, redundant publication, duplicate publication, undisclosed overlap with previous work, and inappropriate reuse of research outputs.

The assessment should consider the nature and extent of the overlap, the material involved, the attribution provided, the relationship between publications, and the effect on the originality and reliability of the scholarly record. Automated similarity scores alone are not sufficient to establish misconduct.

2.2.3 Authorship and contributorship misconduct

Misconduct concerning authorship may include:

• Listing individuals who do not meet the journal's authorship criteria.

• Omitting individuals who have made qualifying contributions.

• Misrepresenting individual contributions.

• Adding, removing, or reordering authors without appropriate authorization.

• Coercive, guest, gift, honorary, or ghost authorship.

• Providing false authorship declarations or contribution statements.

Such concerns will be handled in conjunction with the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

2.2.4 Manipulation of peer review or editorial processes

This category may include:

• Fabricating reviewer identities or contact details.

• Submitting false reviewer recommendations.

• Manipulating peer-review reports or editorial communications.

• Unduly influencing editorial decisions.

• Concealing relevant relationships or competing interests.

• Unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential manuscripts or peer-review information.

• Improper interference with the independence of editorial decision-making.

Suspected manipulation will be assessed according to the available evidence and the journal's Peer Review Processes and Conflicts of Interest Policies.

2.2.5 Undisclosed competing interests

Failure to disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other interests may constitute a publication ethics concern when the omission could materially affect the assessment, interpretation, or presentation of research.

The existence of a competing interest does not automatically establish misconduct. The journal will assess whether the interest was relevant, whether disclosure was required, whether the omission was material, and what action is necessary to preserve transparency and reader confidence.

2.2.6 Research ethics violations

Allegations may involve research conducted without required ethical approval, informed consent, or other safeguards applicable to the research.

For agricultural sciences, concerns may include research involving human participants, farmers or rural communities, animals, personal or sensitive data, biological materials, genetic resources, protected species, or environmentally sensitive field sites.

The journal may also investigate inaccurate or misleading declarations concerning research permits, institutional approvals, consent, biosafety, animal welfare, or compliance with applicable laws and institutional requirements.

These matters will be assessed in conjunction with the journal's Ethical Oversight and Research Ethics Policy.

2.2.7 Data, image, and analytical manipulation

Concerns may involve selective reporting, inappropriate image alteration, unexplained inconsistencies in datasets, undisclosed exclusion of observations, manipulation of statistical analyses, or misrepresentation of experimental procedures.

The journal may request original data, analysis files, laboratory records, field records, image files, or other supporting documentation when necessary to assess a credible concern.

The absence of a particular type of supporting file does not, by itself, establish misconduct. The significance of missing or inconsistent records must be evaluated in the context of the study, the journal's requirements, and the applicable research standards.

2.2.8 Citation manipulation

Citation-related concerns may include coercive citation, fabricated references, knowingly inaccurate citations, inappropriate citation arrangements, or deliberate manipulation intended to distort the scholarly record or inflate citation indicators.

Editors and reviewers must not require irrelevant citations merely to increase their own citation counts or those of a journal, institution, or associated group.

2.2.9 Duplicate submission and redundant publication

Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals, concealing substantial overlap with existing publications, or presenting previously published findings as substantially new work may constitute a publication ethics concern.

Legitimate dissemination of preliminary findings, preprints, conference abstracts, or related research outputs must be evaluated according to the journal's applicable policies and the circumstances of the case.

2.2.10 Misuse of generative artificial intelligence

Concerns may include fabricated data or references generated by AI tools, false statements about AI use, undisclosed use where disclosure is required, misrepresentation of authorship, unauthorized processing of confidential material, or other use that violates the journal's Generative AI Policy.

The use of AI does not automatically constitute misconduct. The journal will assess whether the use was permitted, appropriately disclosed, adequately verified, and consistent with the responsibilities of the authors and other parties.

2.2.11 Other forms of misconduct

IJASC may consider other credible allegations that materially affect research integrity or responsible publication practices, including fraudulent submission practices, misappropriation of confidential information, serious breaches of publication agreements, and systematic manipulation of scholarly publishing processes.

This list is not exhaustive. The journal will assess each case according to its circumstances, relevant policies, and applicable ethical standards.

2.3 Scope of the policy

This policy applies to:

1. Manuscripts submitted to IJASC, including manuscripts under initial assessment, peer review, revision, acceptance, or production.

2. Articles already published by IJASC, including concerns arising after publication.

3. Authors and co-authors whose conduct or declarations are relevant to a case.

4. Reviewers, editors, and other participants in the editorial process, where the allegation concerns their responsibilities.

5. Concerns raised by readers, researchers, institutions, funders, whistleblowers, or other parties with relevant information.

The policy covers both research misconduct and publication-process misconduct. It does not replace institutional procedures for investigating researcher conduct, nor does it replace the journal's separate policies on complaints, appeals, authorship, research ethics, plagiarism, corrections, and retractions.

3. Policy

3.1 General principles

IJASC will handle allegations of misconduct according to the following principles.

Fairness and impartiality. Allegations will be assessed objectively, without prejudging the outcome. Individuals involved in a case must disclose relevant competing interests and must not participate in decisions where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Evidence-based assessment. Decisions will be based on available, relevant, and verifiable evidence. Unsupported accusations, speculation, and automated screening results will not be treated as conclusive proof.

Confidentiality. Information about an allegation will be shared only with individuals who need it for assessment, investigation, consultation, or the protection of the scholarly record, subject to applicable legal and institutional obligations.

Proportionality. The journal's response will reflect the seriousness of the concern, the strength of the evidence, the potential effect on the scholarly record, and the circumstances of the case.

Opportunity to respond. Relevant parties will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the concerns and provide supporting information before a final adverse decision is made, unless immediate action is necessary to protect the scholarly record or other legitimate interests.

Timeliness. IJASC will seek to handle allegations without unnecessary delay while allowing sufficient time for a fair and careful assessment.

Protection of the scholarly record. Where a concern affects a published article, the journal will consider whether clarification, correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or another editorial action is necessary.

3.2 Submission of allegations

Any individual or organization may report a suspected case of research or publication misconduct involving IJASC.

Reports should be submitted in writing through the journal's designated editorial contact:

Responsible office: [INSERT DESIGNATED EDITORIAL OFFICE OR RESEARCH INTEGRITY CONTACT]

Email: [INSERT VERIFIED OFFICIAL EDITORIAL EMAIL]

Suggested subject line: Allegation of Research or Publication Misconduct

The journal will consider allegations raised through other appropriate channels when sufficient information is available to identify and assess the concern.

A report should provide, where available:

• The title, DOI, URL, manuscript identification number, or other information identifying the relevant work.

• The names of the individuals or organizations involved, where known.

• A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

• Specific passages, data, images, tables, references, research records, or other materials relevant to the concern.

• Copies of or links to supporting evidence.

• An explanation of how the evidence relates to the alleged misconduct.

• Relevant information about any relationship or competing interest that could affect the assessment.

A complainant is not required to prove misconduct conclusively before submitting a report. However, the information should be sufficiently specific to permit an initial assessment.

3.3 Anonymous and confidential reports

IJASC may consider anonymous allegations when they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable information.

The journal will assess anonymous reports according to the same evidence-based principles applied to other allegations. Anonymity alone will neither invalidate a report nor establish its credibility.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the identity of complainants and whistleblowers where appropriate. However, absolute confidentiality or anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance, particularly where disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation or required by law.

Where the complainant's identity is known, the journal may communicate with the complainant to request clarification or additional evidence. The journal may limit disclosure of the complainant's identity to protect legitimate confidentiality interests, subject to the need to conduct a fair assessment.

Reports made in good faith will be considered on their merits. The journal will not tolerate retaliation or intimidation intended to prevent the reporting of legitimate concerns. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may be assessed separately if credible evidence indicates that they were made to harass, defame, or improperly disadvantage another person.

3.4 Initial assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct an initial assessment.

The assessment will determine:

1. Whether the concern falls within the scope of this policy.

2. Whether the allegation contains sufficiently specific information to permit further examination.

3. Whether relevant evidence is available or can reasonably be obtained.

4. Whether the allegation concerns a submitted manuscript, a published article, or conduct within the editorial process.

5. Whether an editor, reviewer, author, or other party has a competing interest that requires recusal.

6. Whether immediate interim action may be necessary to protect the scholarly record or the integrity of an ongoing editorial process.

7. Whether the matter requires specialist advice, institutional involvement, or referral under another journal policy.

If the report is outside the journal's remit, the journal may explain this to the complainant where contact information is available.

If the information is insufficient, the journal may request clarification or supporting evidence. Where no meaningful assessment is possible, the journal may close the case while recording the reason for that decision.

A decision to close an allegation at the initial stage does not prevent the journal from reconsidering the matter if significant new evidence subsequently becomes available.

3.5 Investigation of allegations

Where an allegation warrants further examination, IJASC will conduct or coordinate an investigation appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the concern.

The investigation may include:

• Reviewing the manuscript, published article, submission records, peer-review reports, editorial correspondence, and relevant declarations.

• Comparing the work with cited or potentially overlapping publications.

• Requesting original datasets, laboratory records, field records, analytical files, images, protocols, or other relevant documentation.

• Requesting written explanations from the authors or other individuals concerned.

• Consulting independent subject specialists, research-integrity advisers, or other qualified experts.

• Reviewing relevant institutional policies, ethical approvals, research permits, or other supporting documentation.

• Contacting the relevant research institution, employer, funder, or other competent body where appropriate.

• Considering the implications of the concern for other articles or submissions, where credible evidence suggests a broader problem.

The scope of the investigation will be proportionate to the allegation. The journal will avoid unnecessary requests for confidential or personal information that is not relevant to the case.

The journal may seek independent advice where the allegation requires specialist expertise or where the editorial team cannot resolve the technical issues with reasonable confidence.

3.6 Opportunity for response

Where an allegation identifies a particular author, reviewer, editor, or other individual, IJASC will normally provide the relevant person with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the substantive concerns.

The communication should describe the nature of the concern sufficiently to permit a meaningful response, subject to legitimate confidentiality and investigative considerations.

The journal may request explanations, original records, supporting documentation, or clarification of relevant research or editorial practices.

The time allowed for a response will depend on the complexity of the matter and the nature of the evidence requested. The journal should specify a reasonable deadline in its communication and may grant an extension when justified.

If a party does not respond, the journal may proceed using the available evidence after reasonable efforts to obtain a response. A failure to respond will not, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct.

Where appropriate, the journal may seek further clarification from the complainant or other relevant parties. Information obtained from one party may be put to another party for comment when necessary to ensure a fair assessment.

3.7 Cooperation with research institutions

Research institutions are generally responsible for investigating the conduct of their researchers under their own policies and procedures. Journals are responsible for editorial processes and for safeguarding the integrity of the publications they publish.

Where a concern cannot be adequately resolved through editorial assessment, or where the allegation involves serious research misconduct, IJASC may contact the relevant institution or institutions.

Institutional involvement may be appropriate when:

• The allegation concerns fabrication, falsification, or serious research ethics violations.

• The investigation requires access to research records or materials that are not available to the journal.

• There is a substantial authorship dispute that cannot be resolved by the parties.

• Credible evidence suggests systematic or repeated misconduct.

• The journal receives information indicating that an institutional investigation is necessary.

• The journal requires clarification of institutional approval, research permits, consent, or other research compliance matters.

When contacting an institution, the journal should provide a factual description of the concern and relevant supporting evidence, while respecting confidentiality and applicable requirements.

IJASC may request information about the progress or outcome of an institutional investigation where appropriate. The journal will consider institutional findings when determining editorial action but will retain responsibility for decisions concerning its submissions and published articles.

Where multiple institutions are involved, the journal may contact the lead institution or relevant institutions, depending on the circumstances.

This approach follows the division of responsibilities described in COPE's formal guidelines on cooperation between research institutions and journals in research integrity and publication misconduct cases, Version 2, March 2024.

3.8 Interim measures

In certain circumstances, IJASC may take interim measures while an allegation is being assessed or investigated.

Such measures may include:

• Suspending the editorial processing of a manuscript.

• Temporarily withholding acceptance or publication where serious unresolved concerns exist.

• Requesting additional documentation before proceeding.

• Restricting access to confidential materials to individuals who need them for the investigation.

• Informing readers through an expression of concern when a serious concern about a published article warrants public notice before the investigation is completed.

Interim measures are precautionary and must not be presented as a final finding of misconduct.

The journal will assess whether an interim measure is necessary and proportionate, considering the reliability of the available evidence, the potential risk to readers, and the importance of a fair process for the parties involved.

3.9 Editorial independence and conflicts of interest

An editor who is directly involved in an allegation, has a personal or professional relationship with a party, or otherwise has a competing interest that could compromise impartiality must not lead the investigation or determine its outcome.

Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint an independent editor or adviser to handle the case.

If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the journal should refer the matter to an appropriate independent representative of the publisher or journal owner.

Designated independent contact: [INSERT VERIFIED CONTACT OR GOVERNANCE PROCEDURE]

The journal must establish an appropriate alternative procedure before publication of this policy so that allegations concerning senior editorial personnel can be handled fairly and independently.

3.10 Findings and editorial decisions

Following an assessment or investigation, the responsible editor will determine the appropriate editorial response based on the available evidence and the relevant journal policies.

Possible outcomes include:

1. Closing the case because the allegation is unsupported or no further action is warranted.

2. Requesting clarification or additional documentation.

3. Requesting correction or revision of a manuscript before further editorial consideration.

4. Rejecting a manuscript when its integrity, originality, ethical basis, or compliance with journal policies cannot be established.

5. Referring the matter to a relevant research institution or other competent body.

6. Issuing a correction or other editorial notice for a published article.

7. Publishing an expression of concern where substantial questions remain unresolved and a public notice is warranted.

8. Retracting a published article when the evidence and circumstances justify retraction.

9. Taking other proportionate editorial measures consistent with the journal's policies and applicable obligations.

The decision must be supported by an adequate assessment of the evidence. The journal will distinguish between a substantiated concern, an unresolved concern, and an allegation for which sufficient evidence is not available.

Where the evidence does not establish misconduct but identifies an error affecting the article, the journal may still take corrective action to preserve the accuracy of the scholarly record.

The journal will not impose automatic penalties solely because an allegation has been made, a similarity score exceeds a particular value, or a party has failed to respond.

3.11 Communication of outcomes

IJASC will communicate the outcome to the relevant parties where appropriate and practicable.

The communication may explain:

• The nature of the concern considered.

• The general process followed.

• The outcome of the assessment or investigation.

• The editorial action taken, if any.

• Any further steps required from the parties concerned.

The level of detail provided will depend on confidentiality, legal obligations, institutional procedures, and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation.

The journal may decline to disclose confidential information about another person or an institutional investigation where disclosure is not appropriate.

Where a case affects a published article, the journal will consider whether a public notice is necessary. Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction should be sufficiently clear to inform readers of the status of the article and should be linked to the original publication where practicable.

3.12 Protection and correction of the scholarly record

IJASC recognizes that resolving an allegation is not limited to determining whether misconduct occurred. The journal must also consider whether the published record remains accurate, reliable, and transparent.

If a concern affects the reliability, attribution, ethical basis, or interpretation of a published article, the journal will determine whether corrective action is necessary.

A correction may be appropriate where the problem can be addressed without invalidating the article's overall findings.

An expression of concern may be appropriate where serious questions remain unresolved, particularly when an institutional investigation is ongoing or a definitive assessment is not yet possible.

Retraction may be warranted when there is clear evidence that an article is unreliable because of serious error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, major ethical violations, or other circumstances that justify retraction under the journal's relevant policy.

The journal will follow its Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy and its Plagiarism and Retraction Policy when determining the appropriate action.

Where practicable, the original article and its metadata should remain identifiable in the journal archive, with the status of the article clearly indicated. The journal should not silently remove a published article merely because an allegation has been received.

3.13 Appeals and requests for reconsideration

A party directly affected by an editorial decision may request reconsideration in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

The request should identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant new evidence or identify a material procedural concern.

Where practicable, reconsideration should be undertaken by an editor or independent adviser who was not primarily responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant competing interest.

An appeal does not automatically suspend necessary measures to protect the scholarly record. The journal will assess whether the new information or procedural concern warrants a review of the original decision.

3.14 Record keeping and data protection

IJASC will maintain appropriate records of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, decisions, consultations, and actions taken.

Access to case records should be limited to authorized individuals who need the information for assessment, investigation, or editorial decision-making.

Records must be stored and handled securely in accordance with the journal's privacy practices, applicable institutional requirements, and relevant data-protection obligations.

The journal will retain records for a period appropriate to the seriousness of the case, the need to maintain an auditable editorial history, and applicable legal or institutional requirements.

Record retention period: [INSERT APPROVED RETENTION PERIOD OR APPLICABLE RECORDS POLICY]

Confidential information must not be used for unrelated purposes or disclosed beyond what is reasonably necessary to handle the allegation and protect the scholarly record.

3.15 Policy review

This policy should be reviewed periodically and when relevant publication ethics guidance, applicable requirements, or the journal's editorial procedures change.

Any revisions should be reflected consistently in the journal's related policies, submission instructions, editorial procedures, and public contact information.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Reporting procedure

An allegation should be submitted to the journal's designated editorial contact using the verified contact details published on the IJASC website.

The journal should acknowledge receipt when contact information is available and when an acknowledgment is appropriate.

The acknowledgment should confirm that the information has been received without implying that the allegation has been substantiated or that a particular outcome will follow.

The editorial office should register the report and preserve the information needed for the initial assessment.

4.2 Case registration and documentation

For each allegation that warrants assessment, the editorial office should maintain a case record containing, where applicable:

• The date the allegation was received.

• The identity and contact information of the complainant, if provided.

• The manuscript or publication concerned.

• A summary of the allegation.

• Supporting evidence and relevant documentation.

• Records of communications with the parties.

• Details of any competing interests identified.

• The identity of the responsible editor or independent adviser.

• The assessment and investigation steps undertaken.

• Any institutional consultations or referrals.

• The reasons for the editorial decision.

• Any correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other action taken.

Records should be factual, accurate, and appropriately restricted to protect confidentiality.

4.3 Initial review checklist

The responsible editor should consider the following questions during the initial assessment:

1. Is the concern related to a manuscript submitted to IJASC or an article published by the journal?

2. Is the allegation sufficiently specific to permit assessment?

3. Is relevant supporting evidence available?

4. Does the concern potentially affect research integrity, publication ethics, or the reliability of the scholarly record?

5. Is specialist advice necessary?

6. Does any editor or other participant have a competing interest?

7. Is there a need for immediate interim measures?

8. Should the matter be referred to a relevant institution or handled under another journal policy?

This checklist supports consistent handling but does not replace editorial judgment.

4.4 Investigation workflow

When further investigation is warranted, the journal should follow a documented process appropriate to the case.

Step 1: Define the concern. Identify the alleged conduct and the manuscript, article, research activity, or editorial process involved.

Step 2: Preserve relevant evidence. Retain the relevant submission records, correspondence, publication information, supporting files, and other available evidence.

Step 3: Assess conflicts of interest. Ensure that the individuals responsible for handling the case can act impartially.

Step 4: Request clarification. Contact the relevant parties where appropriate and invite explanations or supporting documentation.

Step 5: Obtain additional expertise. Consult an independent specialist or research-integrity adviser when the matter requires expertise beyond the editorial team's competence.

Step 6: Consider institutional involvement. Refer or communicate the matter to the relevant institution where institutional investigation is necessary or appropriate.

Step 7: Evaluate the evidence. Assess the available information objectively and determine whether the concern is unsupported, substantiated, or unresolved.

Step 8: Determine editorial action. Apply the relevant journal policy and select a proportionate response.

Step 9: Communicate the outcome. Inform the relevant parties as appropriate and prepare a public notice if necessary to protect the scholarly record.

Step 10: Close and document the case. Record the decision, its rationale, and any follow-up action required.

The sequence may be adapted to the circumstances. Immediate protective measures or urgent communication may be necessary in exceptional cases.

4.5 Handling cases involving submitted manuscripts

If an allegation concerns a manuscript that has not yet been published, IJASC may pause the editorial process while the concern is assessed.

Depending on the outcome, the journal may request clarification, seek additional documentation, require appropriate revisions, reject the manuscript, or refer the matter for institutional investigation.

A manuscript should not be accepted or published while a serious unresolved concern materially affecting its integrity or ethical basis remains unaddressed.

Where the concern is resolved satisfactorily, the editorial process may resume if otherwise appropriate.

4.6 Handling cases involving published articles

If an allegation concerns an article already published by IJASC, the journal should assess whether the concern affects the article's accuracy, originality, attribution, ethical basis, or reliability.

The journal may request explanations or evidence from the authors, consult independent experts, or contact the relevant institution.

If corrective action is necessary, the journal should follow its relevant post-publication policy and provide an appropriate public notice.

Any notice should accurately describe the nature of the editorial action without disclosing unnecessary confidential information or making unsupported statements about individual culpability.

4.7 Handling allegations concerning editors and reviewers

Allegations involving editors or reviewers should be handled by an independent person with appropriate authority and no relevant competing interest.

Where an editor is implicated, that editor should not participate in the assessment or decision. Where the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, the matter should be referred to the designated independent representative of the publisher or journal owner.

Concerns involving reviewer misconduct may require examination of reviewer reports, correspondence, reviewer identities, conflicts of interest, and other relevant records.

The journal may discontinue a reviewer's participation in a particular manuscript or take other appropriate action if the evidence warrants it. Any such action should be based on the circumstances and documented appropriately.

4.8 Cooperation with institutions

When institutional involvement is required, the editorial office should identify the relevant institution and appropriate research-integrity contact where reasonably possible.

Communications should clearly distinguish established facts from allegations and unresolved questions.

The journal may request that the institution investigate the matter and communicate relevant findings when appropriate. The journal should cooperate with legitimate institutional inquiries while protecting confidential information and preserving its editorial independence.

If an institution does not respond or an investigation is substantially delayed, IJASC should assess whether further communication, consultation with another appropriate body, or an interim public notice is warranted. The appropriate response will depend on the seriousness of the concern and the potential risk to readers.

4.9 Communication and confidentiality

All communications should be professional, factual, and proportionate.

The journal should avoid premature public accusations and should not present an allegation as a proven finding before an adequate assessment has been completed.

Confidential information should be disclosed only where necessary for the investigation, institutional cooperation, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record.

Public notices should focus on the publication and the status of the scholarly record rather than unnecessary personal details.

4.10 Final review and closure

Before closing a case, the responsible editor should confirm that:

• The available evidence has been assessed.

• Relevant responses have been considered.

• Any necessary specialist or institutional input has been reviewed.

• The editorial decision is supported by the available evidence.

• Appropriate communication has been made to the relevant parties.

• Any necessary correction or other public notice has been addressed.

• The case record is complete and securely retained.

A case may be reopened if significant new evidence becomes available or if a material procedural problem is identified.

References and Related Resources

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices: Allegations of Misconduct.

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases. Version 2, March 2024.

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.3

Official guidance:
https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/research-publication-misconduct-journals-institutions.pdf

This policy should be read together with the following IJASC policies:

• Authorship and Contributorship.

• Complaints and Appeals.

• Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests.

• Ethical Oversight and Research Ethics.

• Generative AI Policy.

• Peer Review Processes.

• Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Retraction.

• Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections.

• Data Availability and Reproducibility.

Implementation note: This policy is intended to establish a transparent and fair framework for handling allegations of research and publication misconduct. Before publication, IJASC must verify the designated contact details, the independent escalation route for allegations involving senior editors, and the applicable record-retention procedure. The journal should also ensure that its editorial team can implement the procedures described in this policy.