Allegation of Research Misconduct

Purpose and Scope

The journal receives and evaluates credible allegations of research or publication misconduct concerning submitted manuscripts, peer-review activities, editorial processes, and published articles. Each allegation is assessed fairly, confidentially, and according to the available evidence. A concern is not treated as a proven violation merely because it has been reported.

Types of Alleged Misconduct

Allegations may concern plagiarism or unattributed reuse; fabrication or falsification of data; inappropriate image or data manipulation; unauthorized duplicate or redundant publication; undisclosed authorship contributions; unethical research conduct; undisclosed competing interests; manipulation of peer review or editorial decisions; or inappropriate use of generative AI and other tools. Honest mistakes and good-faith scholarly disagreements are distinguished from misconduct.

Submitting an Allegation

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, or other relevant parties may submit concerns to the Editorial Office by email. Reports should identify the manuscript or published article (title, URL, or DOI), describe the concern, and include relevant supporting evidence or references. Reporters should avoid public disclosure of confidential information and should not submit private material unless necessary for editorial assessment.

Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor acknowledges and screens the report, preserves relevant editorial records, assesses whether the concern is within the journal’s remit, and determines whether additional evidence is required. When a conflict of interest exists, the matter is reassigned to an independent editor or an appropriate representative of the publisher. The initial screening does not itself establish guilt.

Clarification and Institutional Investigation

Where appropriate, the editor describes the concern neutrally and invites the relevant author(s) or parties to respond and provide evidence. The journal may place an affected submission on hold while serious concerns are assessed. Matters requiring investigation of primary data, ethics approvals, or institutional conduct may be referred to a relevant institution, funder, or research-integrity body. The journal does not claim to replace an institution’s formal investigation.

Possible Editorial Outcomes

Depending on the findings and publication stage, action may include closing an unsubstantiated allegation, seeking clarification or revisions, rejecting an unpublished submission on substantiated editorial grounds, notifying institutions where appropriate, or issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for published work. The decision and reasons are documented, proportionate to the evidence, and consistent with the journal’s published policies.

Confidentiality, Fairness, and Protection Against Retaliation

Information is shared only with individuals who reasonably need it for assessment or investigation, subject to applicable obligations. The identity of a reporter is handled carefully, although absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Editors should consider conflicts of interest, avoid premature conclusions, provide a fair opportunity to respond, and discourage retaliatory conduct.

Post-Publication Transparency and Appeals

When an outcome affects the reliability of published research, the journal provides a clear, accessible notice linked to the original article where appropriate. Corrections and retractions must be traceable; records should not be silently changed. Authors and other directly affected parties may request a reasoned reconsideration through the editorial contact. This request is assessed by an editor not directly involved where practicable.

Editorial Responsibility and Review

The Editor-in-Chief oversees editorial decisions, while the publisher supports independent and ethical handling of complaints. All cases are recorded with relevant communications and evidence. These procedures should be reviewed periodically to remain consistent with COPE guidance and any applicable institutional requirements.