Allegation of Research Misconduct

We maintain the highest standards of academic transparency, credibility, and ethical publishing. We treat any suspicion, report, or allegation of research misconduct with the utmost seriousness. All cases are adjudicated through a systematic, confidential, and impartial framework grounded in global publication ethics.

1. Definitions and Scope of Misconduct

Research misconduct encompasses actions that deliberately compromise the originality, accuracy, reliability, and ethical foundation of scholarly work. In the context of community service and medical research, such violations may include:

  • Data Fabrication & Falsification: Inventing data, or deliberately manipulating research materials, equipment, community interventions, or outcomes to misrepresent the actual findings.
  • Plagiarism: Misappropriating the ideas, texts, data, or visual assets of others without proper attribution.
  • Authorship Irregularities: Manipulating the author list through "ghost" (omitting true contributors), "guest," or "gift" authorship (adding non-contributors).
  • Redundant or Duplicate Publication: Submitting or publishing work that substantially overlaps with already published material without transparent disclosure.
  • Image and Data Manipulation: Doctoring clinical images, graphs, or statistical evidence to create misleading representations.
  • Ethical Breaches in Human/Community Research: Failing to obtain informed consent, violating patient/community privacy, or conducting medical/social interventions without the requisite ethical clearance (IRB approval).
  • Peer Review Subversion: Attempting to rig the review process, such as suggesting fake reviewers or manipulating editorial decisions.
  • Concealed Conflicts of Interest: Hiding financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence the research or manuscript evaluation.

Note: Honest computational errors, valid differences in methodological interpretation, or scientific debates do not constitute misconduct.

2. Whistleblowing and Reporting Mechanism

Anyone who suspects misconduct in a submitted manuscript or a published article within Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Humanity and Medicine is encouraged to report it directly to the editorial office. To facilitate a rigorous investigation, reports should include:

  • The exact title of the manuscript/article and the names of the authors.
  • A clear, specific detailing of the alleged ethical breach.
  • Concrete supporting evidence (e.g., comparative documents, data anomalies, or referenced links).

Reports must be submitted in good faith. The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy for malicious, false, or weaponized allegations aimed at harassing authors or reviewers.

3. Initial Triage and Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Chief Editor or a designated editorial board member will conduct a preliminary screening to determine if the claim falls within the journal's jurisdiction and if the provided evidence is actionable.

  • If the evidence is sufficient, the case advances to a formal investigation.
  • If the claim is vague or lacks documentation, the editor may request further proof from the whistleblower or dismiss the case entirely.

4. Comprehensive Investigation Protocol

If a formal investigation is warranted, the journal will proceed impartially and proportionately. The standard protocol includes:

  1. Evidence Review: A thorough analysis of the report, cross-referencing with raw data, similarity check tools, and internal editorial records.
  2. Right of Reply: Contacting the corresponding author to present the allegations and providing them a fair and reasonable timeframe to supply clarifications or raw data.
  3. Expert Consultation: Engaging independent peer reviewers or subject-matter experts to evaluate complex data or medical evidence.
  4. Institutional Coordination: If the journal’s internal investigation reaches its limit, the editorial board may refer the case to the authors' affiliated institutions, funding agencies, or local ethics committees for a formal institutional inquiry.

3. Confidentiality and Protection

All investigations are conducted under strict confidentiality. Information is shared strictly on a "need-to-know" basis to facilitate the investigation. Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Humanity and Medicine operates on a presumption of innocence, ensuring that the reputations of all involved parties are protected during the inquiry. Furthermore, the journal strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against whistleblowers who report concerns in good faith.

6. Consequent Editorial Actions

If misconduct is proven, the editorial board will take actions proportionate to the severity of the offense. These may include:

  • Minor Infractions: Mandating mandatory manuscript revisions, requesting additional data, or publishing an Erratum/Corrigendum for published articles.
  • Major Infractions (Pre-publication): Immediate rejection of the manuscript.
  • Major Infractions (Post-publication): Publishing an Expression of Concern (if an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive) or issuing a formal Retraction in accordance with COPE guidelines.
  • Sanctions: Imposing an embargo prohibiting the offending authors from submitting future manuscripts to the journal for a specified period, and formally notifying their home institution or funding body.

7. Stakeholder Duties in Preserving Integrity

  • Authors: Must guarantee the absolute authenticity of their data, declare all funding sources and conflicts of interest, and ensure all ethical clearances (especially for medical and community subjects) are secured and stated.
  • Peer Reviewers: Must alert the editors immediately if they spot signs of plagiarism, data anomalies, or ethical red flags, while keeping the manuscript entirely confidential.
  • Editors: Must adjudicate all claims objectively, recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, and act decisively to correct the academic record when necessary.

8. Appeals and Dispute Resolution

Authors retain the right to appeal an editorial decision regarding misconduct. Appeals must be submitted in writing, accompanied by new, compelling evidence or detailed rebuttals that were not previously considered. To ensure fairness, the appeal will be reviewed by an independent editorial board member who was not involved in the initial investigation or decision.

9. Alignment with Global Ethical Standards

In navigating allegations of misconduct, Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Humanity and Medicine strictly adheres to the core practices and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy operates in tandem with our other guidelines governing Open Access, Author Contributions, Retractions, and Peer Review standards.