Allegations of Research Misconduct

The Journal of Applied Informatics and Computing (JAIC) is committed to maintaining research integrity, transparency, and ethical standards in scholarly publishing. JAIC takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and is committed to assessing such concerns fairly, objectively, and confidentially.

This policy establishes the procedures for reporting, assessing, investigating, and responding to suspected research misconduct involving submitted manuscripts, articles under review, and published articles. It is informed by recognized scholarly publishing ethics principles, including guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to actions or practices that violate accepted standards of research integrity or publication ethics. Such misconduct may occur during research design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, peer review, or publication.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

Fabrication: Inventing data, results, experiments, or research observations and presenting them as genuine.
Falsification: Manipulating research materials, methods, data, images, or results in ways that misrepresent the research.
Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, data, code, figures, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping work without proper disclosure or justification.
Authorship misconduct: Including individuals who do not qualify for authorship, excluding eligible contributors, or making unauthorized changes to the author list.
Citation manipulation: Inappropriately adding citations to inflate citation counts or influence journal or author metrics.
Peer-review manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, attempting to interfere improperly with the review process, or manipulating reviewer recommendations.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose relevant relationships or interests that could improperly influence the research or its evaluation.
Research ethics violations: Conducting research without required ethical approval or informed consent, or improperly using confidential, identifiable, or protected information.
Misuse of generative AI: Using AI tools to fabricate data, references, images, or research findings, or using such tools in ways that violate the journal's policies or misrepresent the research.
Other serious violations: Any other substantiated conduct that materially compromises the reliability, transparency, or integrity of research or scholarly publication.

Honest errors, reasonable differences in interpretation, or disagreements about scientific conclusions do not automatically constitute misconduct. Each allegation will be assessed according to its nature, context, and available evidence.

2. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, and other concerned parties may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the JAIC editorial office.

A report should, where possible, include:

The title and publication details of the manuscript or article concerned.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Supporting evidence, such as relevant documents, publications, data, correspondence, or links.
The name and contact information of the reporting party, if provided.

Reports should be made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds. JAIC encourages reports supported by verifiable information rather than speculation or personal disputes.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficient information to allow a meaningful assessment.

Reports should be submitted through the contact information provided on the official JAIC website.

3. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the scope of this policy and whether sufficient information is available to justify further action.

The initial assessment may include:

Reviewing the allegation and supporting evidence.
Checking relevant manuscripts, publications, references, data, or editorial records.
Requesting clarification or additional information from the reporting party, where appropriate.
Determining whether the issue can be resolved through clarification or correction or requires a more formal investigation.

JAIC will not treat an allegation as proof of misconduct. The decision to proceed will be based on the nature of the concern and the available evidence.

4. Investigation Procedure

When an allegation warrants further investigation, JAIC may take the following steps:

Notification: Contact the corresponding author or other relevant parties to explain the concern and request a response.
Evidence review: Examine relevant manuscript versions, research records, data, images, references, correspondence, and other available evidence.
Expert consultation: Seek advice from independent reviewers, subject-matter experts, research ethics specialists, or other qualified individuals when necessary.
Institutional consultation: Contact the relevant author's institution, research organization, funding body, or ethics committee when the matter requires institutional investigation or falls outside the journal's authority.
Assessment of responses: Consider explanations and evidence submitted by the parties concerned.
Editorial determination: Decide on an appropriate editorial response based on the evidence available and the journal's policies.

JAIC may adapt the procedure to the seriousness and complexity of the case. The journal will make reasonable efforts to conduct investigations promptly while allowing sufficient time for a fair assessment.

5. Responsibilities of Authors and Other Parties

Authors are expected to cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries concerning the integrity of their research and publications. They may be asked to provide relevant data, documentation, ethical approvals, permissions, or explanations.

Reviewers and editors must report credible concerns about possible misconduct and must avoid using confidential information for personal advantage.

The reporting party should provide information honestly and cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification. Knowingly submitting fabricated evidence or making malicious allegations may itself raise ethical concerns.

All parties are expected to respect the confidentiality of the investigation and avoid public statements that present unresolved allegations as established facts.

6. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

JAIC will handle allegations and related records confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, subject to applicable law, institutional responsibilities, and the need to conduct a fair investigation.

The journal will:

Protect the identity of the reporting party where appropriate and feasible.
Give the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations.
Assess evidence impartially and avoid premature conclusions.
Limit disclosure of information to individuals or organizations with a legitimate role in the investigation.
Take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary reputational harm while ensuring that credible concerns are addressed.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in every case, particularly where institutional involvement, legal obligations, or the protection of the scholarly record requires disclosure.

7. Possible Editorial Actions

Depending on the findings and severity of the case, JAIC may take one or more of the following actions:

Request clarification, supporting documentation, or additional evidence.
Require corrections to a manuscript or published article.
Reject a manuscript or discontinue editorial processing.
Suspend consideration of a manuscript while a relevant investigation is ongoing.
Publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice for a published article.
Restrict future submissions where justified by serious or repeated misconduct and consistent with the journal's policies.
Refer the matter to the author's institution, research ethics committee, funding body, or other appropriate authority.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the evidence and the nature of the concern. JAIC will not impose sanctions solely on the basis of an unverified allegation.

8. Misconduct Involving Published Articles

When credible allegations concern an article already published by JAIC, the journal will assess whether the issue affects the reliability, integrity, or ethical acceptability of the publication.

Depending on the findings, the journal may:

Publish a correction if the issue can be resolved without undermining the article's overall reliability.
Publish an expression of concern if significant questions remain unresolved while further investigation is pending.
Retract the article if the evidence demonstrates that its reliability or integrity is seriously compromised.

Correction and retraction decisions will follow JAIC's separate Correction and Retraction Policy. Relevant notices will be linked to the original article, and publication metadata will be updated where appropriate.

9. Appeals and Requests for Reconsideration

Authors or other directly affected parties may request reconsideration of an editorial action by submitting a written explanation supported by relevant evidence.

Appeals should identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide any new information that may affect the outcome.

Where feasible, the appeal will be reviewed by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision or by an independent expert. The journal will communicate the outcome to the relevant parties.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice that has already been published.

10. Record Keeping and Institutional Cooperation

JAIC will maintain appropriate records of reported allegations, investigations, relevant communications, and editorial decisions, subject to applicable privacy and record-retention requirements.

Where necessary and appropriate, JAIC may cooperate with authors' institutions, research organizations, ethics committees, funding agencies, or other competent authorities to help resolve serious concerns.

The journal recognizes that some matters require formal institutional investigation and will not claim to replace the authority of the institution responsible for overseeing the research.

11. Prevention and Continuous Improvement

JAIC encourages responsible research practices through clear author guidelines, peer review, plagiarism screening, authorship policies, conflict-of-interest disclosure, research ethics requirements, and its Generative AI Policy.

The editorial team will review this policy periodically to maintain consistency with recognized publication ethics principles and developments in scholarly publishing.