Publication Ethics

Allegations×Close Panel of Misconduct

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Agricultural Sciences (IJASC) is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and upholding responsible research and publication practices. 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.

IJASC recognizes that research integrity is a shared responsibility among authors, editors, reviewers, institutions, and publishers. Allegations of misconduct will be handled fairly, impartially, confidentially, and in a timely manner, with due consideration for the rights of all parties involved.

This policy has been developed with reference to the relevant Core Practices and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals in research integrity and publication misconduct cases. Reference to COPE guidance does not imply COPE endorsement, certification, or approval of IJASC.

2. Description

Research and publication misconduct refers to actions or omissions that undermine the integrity, reliability, transparency, or originality of scholarly research and its publication.

Depending on the circumstances, allegations may concern, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Fabrication and falsification: Inventing data or results, manipulating research materials or processes, or inappropriately altering or omitting data so that the research record is misleading.

  2. Plagiarism and redundant publication: Using another person's ideas, words, data, figures, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment; or publishing substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure, justification, or permission where required.

  3. Authorship and contributorship misconduct: Inappropriate attribution or omission of authorship, undisclosed ghost or guest authorship, or disputes involving the accuracy of author contributions.

  4. Citation manipulation: Inappropriate citation practices intended to inflate citation counts or misrepresent the scholarly basis of a publication.

  5. Undisclosed competing interests: Failure to disclose financial, professional, personal, or other interests that could improperly influence research or editorial decisions.

  6. Research ethics violations: Conducting research without required ethical approval or consent, or failing to meet applicable standards for research involving human participants, animals, biological materials, or sensitive information.

  7. Peer-review or editorial-process manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, manipulating reviewer recommendations, attempting to improperly influence editorial decisions, or breaching the confidentiality of peer review.

  8. Misuse of images, data, or research materials: Inappropriate manipulation, misrepresentation, or unauthorized use of research materials that compromises the reliability or integrity of the work.

  9. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative AI: Use of artificial intelligence tools that misrepresents authorship, fabricates evidence or references, breaches confidentiality, or otherwise violates the journal's applicable policies.

An allegation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred. Each case will be assessed on its evidence, context, seriousness, and potential effect on the integrity of the research or publication record.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the editorial and publication process, as relevant to the allegation. It covers concerns raised before or after publication, including concerns reported by readers, researchers, institutions, funders, or whistleblowers.

3. Policy

3.1 Commitment to investigate

IJASC will take credible allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously, regardless of their source or the stage of the publication process at which they arise. Allegations will be assessed and handled according to the evidence available and the procedures set out in this policy.

3.2 Fairness, impartiality, and confidentiality

The journal will seek to ensure that investigations are conducted impartially and that all relevant parties are treated fairly. Information concerning an allegation will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or investigate the matter, subject to applicable legal, institutional, and publication obligations.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the identity of complainants and whistleblowers where confidentiality is appropriate and practicable. It cannot guarantee absolute anonymity in circumstances where disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation or required by law.

3.3 Opportunity to respond

Individuals whose conduct is questioned will normally be informed of the substantive concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final decision is made, except where an immediate protective action is necessary or disclosure would compromise the investigation.

The journal will evaluate responses and supporting evidence objectively. An allegation will not be treated as proven solely because it has been reported.

3.4 Cooperation with institutions

Where an allegation concerns the conduct of research or requires an investigation beyond the journal's remit, IJASC may contact the relevant author's institution, research organization, or other appropriate body. The journal may request an institutional investigation or clarification when necessary.

IJASC remains responsible for editorial decisions and for taking appropriate action to safeguard the scholarly record. Institutional findings may inform the journal's decision but do not automatically replace its independent assessment of publication-related concerns.

3.5 Possible outcomes

Depending on the nature, seriousness, and substantiation of an allegation, possible outcomes include:

  • Closing the case when the allegation is unsupported or no further action is warranted.

  • Requesting clarification, additional evidence, or corrective action from the relevant parties.

  • Rejecting a submitted manuscript when its integrity or compliance with journal policies cannot be established.

  • Requesting a correction or publishing a correction notice when a published article requires amendment.

  • Publishing an expression of concern when substantial questions about a publication remain unresolved and a public notice is warranted.

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

  • Referring the matter to the relevant institution or other appropriate authority.

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

Actions will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The journal will not impose automatic penalties solely on the basis of a similarity score or an unverified allegation. Any restriction on future submissions must be justified, proportionate, and handled consistently with the journal's applicable policies.

3.6 Appeals

A party directly affected by a decision may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. An appeal should identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide any relevant new evidence.

Where practicable, an appeal will be considered by an editor or independent adviser who was not primarily responsible for the original decision. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the relevant party.

3.7 Record keeping and protection of the scholarly record

IJASC will maintain appropriate records of allegations, evidence considered, communications, decisions, and actions taken, subject to confidentiality and applicable data-protection requirements.

When a case affects a published article, the journal will consider whether a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other public notice is necessary to preserve the accuracy and transparency of the scholarly record.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Reporting an allegation

Allegations of research or publication misconduct should be submitted in writing to:

Contact: [INSERT DESIGNATED EDITOR OR EDITORIAL OFFICE]
Email: [INSERT VERIFIED EDITORIAL CONTACT EMAIL]
Subject: Allegation of Research or Publication Misconduct

A report should include, where available:

  • The title, DOI, URL, or manuscript identification number of the work concerned.

  • A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

  • Supporting documentation, data, references, or other verifiable evidence.

  • An explanation of how the evidence relates to the concern.

  • Contact information for follow-up, if the complainant is willing to provide it.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information to permit an initial assessment.

4.2 Initial assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriately designated editor, will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy and whether the information provided warrants further examination.

The initial assessment may include checking the submitted manuscript or published article, reviewing available documentation, consulting relevant editorial records, and requesting clarification from the complainant.

If the allegation is outside the journal's remit or lacks sufficient supporting information, the journal may close the case or request further details where appropriate. The reason for closure will be recorded.

4.3 Investigation

When further investigation is warranted, the journal may:

  1. Inform the relevant author, reviewer, editor, or other party of the concern, as appropriate.

  2. Request a written response, supporting documents, original data, or other relevant evidence.

  3. Examine the manuscript, published article, peer-review records, correspondence, and available research materials.

  4. Seek advice from an independent subject specialist or research-integrity adviser.

  5. Contact the relevant institution or other appropriate body when institutional investigation or verification is necessary.

  6. Consider interim measures when there is a substantial risk to the integrity of the scholarly record.

An editor who has a competing interest in the case must not lead the investigation or determine its outcome. An alternative editor or independent adviser should be appointed where necessary.

4.4 Decision and communication

Following the assessment or investigation, the responsible editor will determine the appropriate action based on the evidence and the relevant journal policies.

The journal will communicate the outcome to the parties who need to be informed, subject to confidentiality and applicable obligations. Where the matter concerns a published article, any public notice will be linked to the original publication whenever practicable.

The journal will aim to handle cases without unnecessary delay while allowing sufficient time for a fair assessment and response. No fixed investigation deadline is established by this template; any operational timeframe should be specified by the journal if one is adopted.

4.5 Documentation and review

The editorial office will retain case records securely and limit access to authorized individuals. Records will be handled in accordance with the journal's privacy practices and applicable institutional requirements.

This policy should be reviewed periodically and whenever relevant COPE guidance, institutional procedures, or the journal's editorial practices change.

COPE Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices and relevant guidance on research integrity and publication misconduct.

Official resource: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guidelines/cooperation-between-research-institutions-and-journals-on-research-integrity-and-publication-misconduct-cases

Implementation note: This policy must be reviewed against IJASC's actual editorial procedures and verified contact details before publication. It should be read together with the journal's policies on plagiarism and retraction, authorship and contributorship, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest, research ethics, and post-publication corrections.