Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

1. Introduction

Jurnal Ranah Komunikasi (JRK) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and transparency of the scholarly record. The journal considers research and publication misconduct to be serious matters that may undermine public trust in scholarly communication and the validity of published research.

This policy establishes the procedures followed by Jurnal Ranah Komunikasi (JRK) when concerns or allegations of research or publication misconduct arise in relation to a submitted manuscript or a published article.

JRK handles allegations of misconduct in accordance with the principles of fairness, confidentiality, objectivity, and due process. The policy is developed with reference to the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Reference to COPE in this policy does not constitute or imply endorsement, certification, or approval of Jurnal Ranah Komunikasi by COPE.

2. Scope and Description of Misconduct

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to JRK, articles under review, and articles that have already been published. It applies to all individuals involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties whose actions may affect the integrity of the publication process.

Research or publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

2.1 Fabrication

Fabrication is the invention of data, results, research procedures, or other research information and the reporting of such information as genuine.

2.2 Falsification

Falsification includes manipulating research materials, procedures, data, results, or other elements of the research record in a way that misrepresents the research.

2.3 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another person's ideas, words, data, findings, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism may include substantial unattributed textual copying, appropriation of ideas or findings, inappropriate reuse of previously published material, and other forms of misrepresentation of intellectual ownership.

Specific matters concerning plagiarism are addressed further in the journal's Plagiarism and Redundant Publication Policy.

2.4 Redundant, Duplicate, or Concurrent Publication

Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research in more than one journal without appropriate disclosure may constitute publication misconduct.

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals.

2.5 Authorship Misconduct

Authorship misconduct may include inappropriate attribution of authorship, including gift, guest, or ghost authorship, exclusion of individuals who meet legitimate authorship criteria, or unauthorized changes to the authorship of a manuscript.

Authorship matters are addressed further in the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

2.6 Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation includes practices intended to improperly increase citation counts, distort the scholarly importance of a work, or otherwise manipulate the citation record.

This may involve inappropriate citation demands, excessive self-citation, coordinated citation practices, or other forms of citation manipulation.

2.7 Undeclared Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a relevant financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other competing interest may constitute publication misconduct when the undisclosed interest could reasonably affect the integrity or interpretation of the work or the publication process.

2.8 Research Ethics Violations

Research misconduct may include failure to comply with applicable ethical requirements governing research involving human participants, personal or sensitive information, or other forms of research requiring ethical oversight.

Where appropriate, JRK may request information concerning ethical approval, informed consent, or other relevant documentation.

2.9 Peer-Review Manipulation

Peer-review manipulation includes attempts to improperly influence or subvert the peer-review process. Examples may include providing fraudulent reviewer identities or contact information, interfering with reviewer communications, or attempting to improperly influence editorial or reviewer decisions.

JRK may investigate suspected manipulation occurring during the review process or identified after publication.

2.10 Data or Image Manipulation

Manipulation, fabrication, suppression, or misrepresentation of research data, figures, tables, images, or other research materials may constitute misconduct when it compromises the reliability or integrity of the research record.

2.11 Other Forms of Publication Misconduct

JRK may investigate other practices that substantially violate accepted standards of responsible research or scholarly publishing, even when the conduct is not specifically listed above.

3. Principles for Handling Allegations

3.1 Commitment to Investigate

JRK takes credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously.

An allegation will not automatically be regarded as proof of misconduct. The journal will assess the available information and determine the appropriate course of action based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.

3.2 Fairness and Objectivity

JRK will seek to handle allegations fairly and objectively.

Individuals against whom allegations are made will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to relevant concerns before a final editorial determination is made, where appropriate.

The journal will avoid making premature public statements about unresolved allegations.

3.3 Confidentiality

Information relating to an ongoing investigation will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will be disclosed only to individuals who need it for the proper handling of the case or where disclosure is required by applicable institutional, legal, or regulatory processes.

The identity of individuals who raise concerns in good faith will be protected where reasonably possible.

3.4 Protection Against Retaliation

JRK does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise genuine concerns about research or publication integrity.

The journal will take reasonable steps within its remit to protect complainants and whistleblowers from inappropriate disclosure or retaliation.

3.5 Cooperation

JRK may cooperate with authors' institutions, employers, research organizations, funding bodies, or other relevant organizations when an allegation requires investigation beyond the journal's editorial authority.

Where appropriate, JRK may request that the relevant institution investigate allegations concerning research conduct.

3.6 Independence of the Editorial Process

Allegations of misconduct will be handled independently of the potential academic, institutional, or financial consequences for the individuals involved.

Editorial decisions concerning manuscripts will be based on scholarly and ethical considerations rather than pressure from authors, reviewers, institutions, or other external parties.

4. Reporting an Allegation

Concerns regarding possible research or publication misconduct may be submitted to the Editorial Office of Jurnal Ranah Komunikasi.

Ethics and Misconduct Contact:
[INSERT OFFICIAL JRK ETHICS/EDITORIAL CONTACT]

An allegation should, where possible, include:

  • the title of the manuscript or published article;

  • the manuscript ID or DOI, if available;

  • a clear description of the suspected misconduct;

  • relevant dates or publication information;

  • supporting documents, data, references, or other evidence; and

  • the identity and contact information of the complainant, where the complainant is willing to provide it.

JRK may consider anonymous allegations when sufficient specific and verifiable information is provided to permit a meaningful assessment.

Unsubstantiated, malicious, or deliberately misleading allegations may be disregarded.

5. Initial Assessment

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

The initial assessment may consider:

  1. whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy;

  2. whether the concern is sufficiently specific to be assessed;

  3. whether there is information or evidence supporting further consideration;

  4. whether an editor or reviewer has a conflict of interest in handling the matter; and

  5. whether the matter should be referred to another appropriate person, institution, or body.

Where an allegation is clearly outside the journal's responsibility or is unsupported by sufficient information, JRK may close the matter at the initial assessment stage.

The journal may request additional information from the complainant when necessary.

6. Investigation Procedure

When an allegation provides a reasonable basis for further investigation, JRK may undertake one or more of the following steps, depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern.

6.1 Notification and Response

Where appropriate, the individual or authors concerned will be informed of the allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The journal may withhold information concerning the identity of the complainant when necessary to protect confidentiality or the integrity of the investigation.

6.2 Examination of Evidence

JRK may examine relevant materials, including:

  • the submitted manuscript or published article;

  • previous versions of the manuscript;

  • research data and supporting materials where available;

  • figures, tables, and other research materials;

  • references and citation records;

  • peer-review reports;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • authorship information;

  • declarations of competing interests;

  • ethical approval or consent documentation, where applicable; and

  • other information relevant to the allegation.

6.3 Consultation with Experts

For complex or specialized cases, JRK may seek advice from an appropriately qualified independent expert.

Any person involved in assessing an allegation should disclose relevant conflicts of interest and should not participate in the investigation where their involvement could compromise its impartiality.

6.4 Institutional Involvement

Where an allegation concerns the conduct of research, serious research integrity violations, or matters that the journal is not able to investigate adequately, JRK may refer the matter to the relevant institution or other appropriate authority.

The journal may request information concerning the outcome of an institutional investigation where this is relevant to the integrity of the published record.

Where multiple institutions or journals are involved, JRK may cooperate with the relevant organizations as appropriate.

6.5 Interim Measures

When a concern relates to a published article and there are substantial unresolved doubts about its reliability or integrity, JRK may take an interim measure where appropriate, including the publication of an Expression of Concern.

An interim measure does not by itself establish that misconduct has occurred.

7. Outcomes and Editorial Actions

The action taken by JRK will depend on the nature, seriousness, evidence, and stage of the case.

7.1 Allegation Not Substantiated

If the available evidence does not substantiate the allegation, JRK may close the case.

Where appropriate, the relevant parties may be informed of the outcome.

7.2 Minor or Correctable Issues

Where an issue does not substantially compromise the reliability or integrity of the research record, JRK may take an appropriate corrective action.

Depending on the circumstances, this may include:

  • requesting clarification from the authors;

  • requesting a correction to the manuscript;

  • issuing a correction or corrigendum for a published article;

  • requesting additional disclosure; or

  • issuing a formal warning concerning future submissions.

7.3 Serious Misconduct

Where serious misconduct is established or where reliable evidence demonstrates that a published article is substantially unreliable, JRK may take appropriate editorial action, which may include:

  • rejection of a manuscript that has not been published;

  • correction of the published record where appropriate;

  • retraction of a published article;

  • publication of an Expression of Concern where appropriate;

  • notification of the relevant institution, employer, funding body, or other appropriate organization; or

  • other measures necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Retractions and other post-publication actions will be handled in accordance with the journal's Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern Policy and relevant COPE guidance.

8. Retraction and Expression of Concern

JRK may issue a retraction when there is sufficient evidence that a published article is unreliable or otherwise requires removal from the formal scholarly record in accordance with applicable editorial and ethical standards.

A retraction notice should clearly identify the article concerned and explain the reason for the retraction.

Where an investigation is ongoing or evidence is inconclusive but substantial concerns exist regarding the reliability or integrity of a published article, JRK may publish an Expression of Concern.

The publication of an Expression of Concern does not constitute a finding of misconduct.

9. Appeals and Further Review

An individual or author directly affected by an editorial decision arising from a misconduct investigation may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

An appeal should:

  • be submitted in writing;

  • identify the decision being challenged;

  • explain the specific grounds for the appeal;

  • provide relevant new evidence or information, where available; and

  • be submitted within a reasonable period following notification of the decision.

An appeal will not normally reopen a case merely because a party disagrees with the outcome. However, JRK may reconsider a decision where there is significant new evidence, evidence of a procedural error, or another substantive reason warranting further consideration.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the appeal should be handled by an appropriately independent editor or adviser.

10. Record Keeping

JRK will maintain appropriate records of allegations, relevant correspondence, evidence, investigations, decisions, and actions taken.

Records relating to misconduct allegations will be treated confidentially and retained in accordance with the journal's applicable editorial and administrative procedures.

For published articles, any necessary correction, retraction, or Expression of Concern will form part of the permanent scholarly record.

11. Prevention of Research and Publication Misconduct

JRK seeks to prevent research and publication misconduct through:

  • clear publication ethics policies;

  • transparent authorship requirements;

  • appropriate peer-review procedures;

  • conflict-of-interest disclosure;

  • requirements concerning originality and proper citation;

  • editorial scrutiny of submitted manuscripts;

  • appropriate use of plagiarism or similarity-detection tools where applicable;

  • clear guidance for authors and reviewers; and

  • continued education and awareness concerning responsible research and publication practices.

JRK expects authors, editors, and reviewers to comply with the ethical responsibilities described in the journal's relevant policies.

12. Relationship with Other JRK Policies

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

  • Authorship and Contributorship

  • Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

  • Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests

  • Peer Review and Reviewer Ethics

  • Research Ethics and Ethical Oversight

  • Complaints and Appeals

  • Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

  • Generative Artificial Intelligence

Where a case involves more than one ethical issue, JRK may apply the relevant policies concurrently.

13. COPE Reference

Jurnal Ranah Komunikasi develops and implements this policy with reference to relevant COPE principles and guidance concerning allegations of research and publication misconduct.

In handling individual cases, the journal may also refer to relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts concerning, among other matters, plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, peer-review manipulation, systematic manipulation of the publication process, and concerns regarding the integrity of published research.

Relevant COPE resources include:

  • COPE Core Practices

  • COPE guidance on allegations of misconduct

  • COPE guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases

  • COPE guidance on concerns regarding the integrity of published research

  • COPE guidance on retractions and Expressions of Concern

Policy review: This policy will be reviewed periodically and updated when necessary to reflect developments in publication ethics, scholarly publishing practices, and relevant COPE guidance.

Last updated: [INSERT DATE]