Research Misconduct Policy

Journal Mahasiswa: Jurnal Ilmiah Penalaran dan Penelitian Mahasiswa is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and credibility of scholarly publishing. The journal does not tolerate research or publication misconduct and takes all credible allegations seriously.

All allegations of suspected misconduct involving submitted manuscripts, published articles, authors, reviewers, or editorial personnel will be handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The primary responsibility of the journal is to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal will cooperate with relevant institutions, research ethics committees, funders, and other responsible organizations when necessary.

2. Definition and Types of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following practices:

  1. Data Fabrication: Inventing data, results, experiments, or research findings that were not actually obtained.

  2. Data Falsification: Manipulating research materials, processes, data, images, or results in a way that misrepresents the research findings.

  3. Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, images, or other intellectual work without appropriate acknowledgment.

  4. Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially similar research in more than one publication without proper disclosure, justification, or cross-referencing.

  5. Improper Authorship: Including individuals who have not made a legitimate scholarly contribution, excluding eligible contributors, or misrepresenting authorship contributions.

  6. Citation Manipulation: Inappropriately influencing citation practices to increase citation counts or artificially improve journal or author metrics.

  7. Image Manipulation: Inappropriately altering, duplicating, or presenting images or figures in a misleading manner.

  8. Unethical Research Practices: Conducting research without required ethical approval, informed consent, or appropriate safeguards for research participants.

  9. Peer Review Manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, manipulating reviewer recommendations, or interfering with the independent peer-review process.

  10. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that may influence research or editorial decisions.

  11. Misappropriation of Research: Using confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, or research materials obtained through peer review or editorial processes without authorization.

This list is not exhaustive. Other practices that compromise research integrity or the reliability of scholarly publications may also be considered misconduct.

3. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, and other concerned parties may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the journal's editorial office through the journal's official communication channels.

Reports should provide sufficient information to allow an initial assessment, including:

  • Identification of the manuscript or published article, including its title or DOI, where applicable.

  • A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

  • Relevant supporting evidence, documents, or references.

  • Contact information for further communication, if the reporting party is willing to provide it.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The identity of individuals reporting concerns will be protected as far as reasonably possible.

4. Initial Assessment and Investigation

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editorial representative will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern is sufficiently credible and relevant to the journal's publication responsibilities.

The procedure may include:

  1. Acknowledging receipt of the report, where contact information is available.

  2. Reviewing the allegation and available supporting evidence.

  3. Consulting relevant editors or independent experts when necessary.

  4. Requesting clarification or an explanation from the corresponding author or other relevant parties.

  5. Requesting supporting documentation, original data, research records, ethical approval documents, or other relevant materials when appropriate.

  6. Referring the matter to the author's institution, research ethics committee, or another responsible organization when a formal investigation is required.

The journal will follow relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance when handling specific cases, such as suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or authorship disputes.