Allegations of Research Misconduct

JUISI: Jurnal Ilmiah Sistem Informasi is committed to maintaining research integrity and the credibility of scholarly publications through the fair, objective, transparent, and responsible handling of alleged research and publication misconduct. Any concerns regarding potential misconduct in research activities, peer review, or scholarly publication will be examined based on available evidence and established editorial procedures.

This policy is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning the investigation of research and publication misconduct, the protection of involved parties, and the preservation of the integrity of the scholarly record.

1. Scope of Research and Publication Misconduct

JUISI receives and evaluates allegations of misconduct that may compromise the integrity, validity, or credibility of research and scholarly publications.

Potential forms of misconduct include:

Data Fabrication and Falsification: The creation of fictitious data, manipulation of datasets, alteration of experimental results, or presentation of findings that are inconsistent with the underlying research evidence.
Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication: The unauthorized use of intellectual work without proper attribution, simultaneous manuscript submission to multiple journals, or substantial republication without appropriate disclosure and justification.
Peer Review Manipulation: The use of fabricated reviewer identities, recommendations influenced by undisclosed interests, or other actions intended to compromise the independence and integrity of the peer review process.
Authorship Misconduct: The inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria, the exclusion of eligible contributors, or unauthorized changes to authorship.
Research Data and Privacy Violations: The unauthorized collection, disclosure, or use of personal information, organizational records, confidential datasets, or other protected research materials.
Manipulation of System Development and Evaluation Results: The deliberate misrepresentation of software testing results, user evaluations, system performance measurements, or computational experiments.
Misuse of Artificial Intelligence: The use of AI technologies to fabricate research data, generate false references, manipulate analytical findings, or present artificially generated evidence as authentic research results.
Other Publication Ethics Violations: The concealment of relevant conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, or other unethical practices that compromise the reliability of scholarly publications.

Allegations may concern authors, reviewers, editors, or other individuals involved in the research and publication process.

2. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of research or publication misconduct may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, or other individuals possessing relevant information.

Reports should be submitted through the official communication channels provided on the journal's Contact page.

A report should include the following information, where available:

The title or identification details of the manuscript or published article concerned.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Relevant supporting evidence, such as documents, research data, similarity reports, or related publications.
The reporting individual's contact information, if they are willing to provide it.

JUISI may consider anonymous reports when the allegations contain sufficiently specific information and verifiable supporting evidence.

All reports will be handled proportionately and responsibly. The identity of the reporting individual will be protected to the extent reasonably possible, subject to investigative requirements and applicable legal obligations.

Individuals who raise concerns in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation by parties involved in the journal's editorial management.

3. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine its relevance, completeness, and evidentiary basis.

The preliminary assessment includes:

Identifying the nature of the alleged misconduct and its relationship to the manuscript or published article.
Examining the available evidence and supporting information.
Evaluating the potential implications for research validity and publication integrity.
Determining whether clarification, additional expert assessment, or institutional involvement is necessary.

Where the available evidence is insufficient, the editor may request additional information before proceeding.

Reports lacking a reasonable evidentiary basis may be closed following an appropriate preliminary assessment. However, a closed case may be reconsidered if significant new evidence becomes available.

An allegation must not be treated as a confirmed violation until the available evidence has been adequately examined.

4. Clarification and Further Examination

When the preliminary assessment identifies concerns requiring further examination, the editorial team will request clarification from the author or other relevant parties.

Individuals subject to allegations will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond, provide explanations, and submit supporting documentation.

For Information Systems research, the requested documentation may include original datasets, research instruments, system development records, software testing results, source code, experimental logs, or relevant research authorization documents.

Such requests must respect personal data protection, information security, intellectual property rights, and legitimate access restrictions.

Where necessary, JUISI may seek additional assessments from independent experts or consult the researcher's affiliated institution.

JUISI has the authority to make editorial decisions based on the available evidence. However, the journal does not replace research institutions or other competent authorities responsible for conducting formal investigations into research misconduct.

5. Management of Conflicts of Interest

All individuals involved in examining allegations of misconduct must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the assessment.

Editors or reviewers who have direct relationships with the parties involved, personal interests, or prior involvement in the disputed matter must not serve as the sole decision-makers in the case.

If an allegation concerns a member of the Editorial Board, the assessment must be assigned to another editor without a relevant conflict of interest or, where necessary, an independent qualified individual.

If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the publisher may coordinate the examination with the involvement of an independent party.

All proceedings must uphold fairness, appropriate confidentiality, and independence from conflicting interests.

6. Editorial Decisions and Corrective Actions

Editorial decisions will be determined by the findings of the examination, the strength of available evidence, the seriousness of the misconduct, and its implications for research reliability.

A. Manuscripts Under Editorial Consideration

For manuscripts that have not yet been published, possible actions include:

Continuing the editorial process when the allegation is unsupported by evidence.
Requesting clarification, corrections, or additional supporting documentation.
Suspending the peer review or editorial process while further examination is conducted.
Rejecting the manuscript when serious misconduct or unresolved integrity concerns are established.
Referring the matter to the relevant institution when a formal investigation is required.

B. Published Articles

For articles that have already been published, appropriate actions may include:

Correction: Issuing a formal correction when an error can be addressed without invalidating the principal research findings.
Expression of Concern: Publishing an editorial notice when serious concerns remain unresolved or further investigation is necessary.
Retraction: Retracting an article when sufficient evidence demonstrates that its findings are unreliable or that serious ethical violations justify withdrawal from the scholarly record.
Institutional Notification: Informing relevant research institutions or competent authorities when additional investigation or institutional action is warranted.

Post-publication measures are intended to maintain the reliability of the scholarly record rather than automatically impose disciplinary sanctions on authors. Unintentional errors must be distinguished from deliberate misconduct.

Detailed procedures for corrections and retractions are provided in the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy.

7. Confidentiality and Documentation

JUISI maintains the confidentiality of information obtained during misconduct assessments to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with applicable legal obligations and procedural requirements.

Information concerning allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, and investigation outcomes will be disclosed only to individuals with legitimate responsibilities in the handling of the case.

The editorial team must maintain appropriate documentation of the assessment process, communications with relevant parties, evidence considered, and the rationale supporting editorial decisions.

These records will be managed securely to promote procedural consistency, internal accountability, and the traceability of editorial decisions.

When communication with research institutions or competent authorities becomes necessary, the information disclosed must be limited to what is relevant and reasonably required for the examination.

8. Complaints and Requests for Reconsideration

Individuals affected by editorial decisions concerning alleged misconduct may request reconsideration through JUISI's official communication channels.

Requests must present clear academic or procedural grounds and should be supported by new evidence or relevant information that was not adequately considered during the original assessment.

Reconsideration will be conducted, where reasonably possible, by an authorized editor or independent party without a conflict of interest in the matter.

The outcome may involve upholding the original decision, modifying the decision, or initiating an additional examination when significant new information becomes available.

Submitting a request for reconsideration does not automatically suspend editorial measures necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Commitment to Research and Publication Integrity

JUISI is committed to addressing allegations of research and publication misconduct consistently, proportionately, and on the basis of verifiable evidence.

All cases will be assessed without discrimination concerning institutional affiliation, academic position, professional reputation, or personal background.

The journal prioritizes fair procedures, the protection of the rights of involved parties, and the preservation of the reliability of published research.

In implementing this policy, JUISI draws upon relevant COPE principles and guidance and may coordinate with appropriate research institutions when necessary.

This policy reflects JUISI's continuing commitment to credible scholarly publishing, responsible research practices, and the promotion of academic integrity within the field of Information Systems.