ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Journal Neo Societal (JNS) is dedicated to preserving the credibility, transparency, and integrity of scholarly research and the published academic record. The journal does not accept research misconduct or unethical publication practices that may compromise the reliability of research findings or diminish trust in authors, reviewers, editors, and the broader scholarly community.

JNS addresses all allegations of research misconduct through objective, consistent, proportionate, and properly documented procedures. In examining such allegations, the journal may consult relevant principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where appropriate, JNS may also communicate with the academic institutions or research organizations affiliated with the individuals concerned.

  1. Scope

This policy governs allegations of research and publication ethics violations relating to:

  • Manuscripts undergoing editorial evaluation;
  • Articles published in JSR;
  • Authors and research contributors;
  • Editors and peer reviewers;
  • Research activities and the communication of research findings; and
  • The credibility and integrity of JNS's scholarly publication record.

Allegations may be reported by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, funding bodies, or other individuals and organizations possessing relevant information or a legitimate interest in the reported matter.

  1. Types of Alleged Misconduct

JNS may examine allegations concerning, but not limited to, the following practices:

  • Fabrication of research data, empirical evidence, or findings;
  • Falsification of research data, methodological procedures, images, or results;
  • Deliberate manipulation, selective omission, or misleading representation of research evidence;
  • Plagiarism;
  • Self-plagiarism or improper reuse of previously published scholarly material;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication;
  • Manipulation of citations or references;
  • Interference with or manipulation of peer-review procedures;
  • Improper authorship attribution, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship;
  • Failure to declare relevant conflicts of interest;
  • Use of research data or materials without appropriate authorization;
  • Noncompliance with required ethical approval or applicable research ethics standards;
  • Violations of research participants' rights, safety, privacy, or confidentiality;
  • Inappropriate modification or manipulation of research images;
  • Misrepresentation of research methods, empirical findings, or scholarly sources;
  • Unauthorized use of research datasets or findings; and
  • Other conduct that substantially threatens research integrity or the credibility of the scholarly record.

These categories are not exhaustive. JSR may consider other suspected forms of misconduct according to the circumstances of the case, available evidence, and relevant standards of research and publication ethics.

  1. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Reports of suspected research misconduct may be submitted through JSR's designated official communication channel.

Where available, a report should provide:

  1. The complainant's identity and contact details;
  2. The title of the manuscript or published article;
  3. The names of the authors concerned;
  4. The manuscript identification number and/or DOI;
  5. A precise description of the suspected misconduct;
  6. Identification of the relevant manuscript section or stage of the research process;
  7. Supporting documents, evidence, or other pertinent information; and
  8. Additional details that may assist JNS in conducting a preliminary assessment.

Anonymous allegations may be examined when they contain sufficiently detailed, credible, and verifiable information. Nevertheless, anonymity may restrict the journal's ability to obtain clarification or undertake a comprehensive investigation.

  1. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, JNS conducts a preliminary evaluation to establish:

  • Whether the reported matter falls within the journal's editorial authority;
  • Whether the information submitted provides sufficient grounds for further examination;
  • Whether preliminary indications suggest possible research or publication misconduct;
  • Whether explanations should be requested from the individuals concerned;
  • Whether conflicts of interest could compromise impartial case handling; and
  • Whether the matter should be referred to another editor, the publisher, a research institution, or another competent authority.

A preliminary assessment does not establish that misconduct has occurred. JNS will not attribute responsibility to an individual merely because an unverified allegation has been submitted.

  1. Collection and Evaluation of Evidence

Where an allegation requires further examination, JNS may review relevant materials, including:

  • The submitted manuscript and its earlier versions;
  • Editorial records and relevant correspondence;
  • Available research data and supporting materials;
  • Figures, tables, graphs, and supplementary documents;
  • Similarity-checking reports or other screening results;
  • Peer-review assessments;
  • Authorship declarations and contributorship statements;
  • Conflict-of-interest disclosures;
  • Documentation relating to research ethics approval;
  • Sources and provenance of research data or materials;
  • Related scholarly publications; and
  • Other evidence relevant to the reported concern.

For sociological research, relevant evidence may include interview transcripts, observation records, field notes, survey datasets, archival documents, and documentation of analytical procedures, subject to applicable confidentiality and research ethics requirements.

JNS may seek additional explanations or documentation from authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, or other relevant parties.

Evidence will be assessed impartially and, where appropriate, through consideration of multiple sources rather than reliance on a single indicator or automated screening result.

  1. Opportunity to Respond

Individuals accused of misconduct will, where circumstances permit, be afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain the reported issue, provide clarification, or submit supporting evidence before JSR implements a consequential editorial measure.

Explanations received will be evaluated alongside the available evidence and will not automatically establish either the validity or the dismissal of an allegation.

Where urgent intervention is required to safeguard the scholarly record, JNS may introduce temporary protective measures before the clarification process has concluded.

  1. Involvement of the Author's Institution

JNS acknowledges that universities, research institutions, or organizations responsible for conducting research may hold primary authority to investigate allegations concerning research misconduct.

When reported concerns involve research procedures, data fabrication, falsification, ethical approval, or other matters requiring institutional examination, JNS may request clarification or relevant documentation from the author or responsible institution.

Where justified and legally permissible, the journal may directly contact the institution concerned to communicate the allegation or request pertinent information.

Institutional referral does not relieve JSR of its responsibility to implement appropriate editorial measures when necessary to protect the reliability of the scholarly record.

  1. Allegations Involving Editors or Reviewers

When allegations concern an editor, reviewer, or editorial board member, individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must be excluded from the examination and decision-making process.

JNS may designate an independent editor or another appropriately authorized individual to manage the case.

Where allegations involve manipulation of peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, or other unethical practices, JNS may take appropriate measures. These may include replacing a reviewer, excluding an individual from the ongoing editorial process, limiting future editorial involvement, or referring the matter to a relevant institution or competent authority.

  1. Allegations of Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

Where plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or unauthorized reuse of previously published material is suspected, JNS may examine the relevant publications and supporting sources and request clarification from the authors concerned.

If sufficient evidence substantiates the allegation, JNS may implement measures proportionate to the seriousness of the violation, including:

  • Rejecting a manuscript undergoing evaluation;
  • Requesting clarification or correction;
  • Publishing an editorial notice;
  • Issuing an Expression of Concern;
  • Correcting an already published article;
  • Retracting a published article; or
  • Implementing other appropriate editorial measures.
  1. Fabrication, Falsification, and Data Manipulation

JNS regards allegations of fabricated, falsified, or manipulated research data as serious ethical concerns because such practices may undermine the validity of scholarly conclusions and the credibility of published research.

To assess these concerns, JNS may request:

  • Relevant empirical research data;
  • Documentation of data collection procedures;
  • Records explaining analytical processes;
  • Information identifying research data sources;
  • Supporting research materials; or
  • Additional explanations necessary to evaluate the allegation.

In sociological research, this examination may concern the authenticity of interviews, observations, surveys, documentary evidence, statistical analyses, or qualitative interpretations.

Where substantial evidence suggests fabrication, falsification, or material manipulation, JNS may request a formal investigation by the author's institution and implement appropriate editorial measures concerning the submitted or published work.

  1. Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

For studies involving human participants, animals, personal information, or sensitive research materials, JNS may require documentation concerning ethical approval, informed consent, privacy safeguards, and other applicable research ethics obligations.

In sociological research, particular attention may be directed toward the protection of interview participants, research informants, vulnerable populations, and communities whose identities or experiences could be exposed through publication.

When allegations indicate that research proceeded without required ethical authorization or failed to provide adequate protection for participants or research subjects, JSR may request relevant explanations and supporting documentation.

In serious cases, the journal may refer the matter to an appropriate research institution, ethics committee, or competent authority and undertake editorial action consistent with the nature of the concern.

  1. Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may constitute an ethical concern when the undisclosed interest could substantially influence research conduct, interpretation of findings, peer-review evaluations, or editorial decisions.

JNS may request authors, reviewers, or editors to identify and explain relevant interests.

When an undisclosed conflict is established, the journal may require an amendment to the conflict-of-interest declaration or implement other editorial measures proportionate to the seriousness and consequences of the issue.

  1. Confidentiality

JNS will safeguard the confidentiality of cases involving suspected research misconduct to the extent reasonably possible.

Case-related information will be disclosed only to individuals or organizations with a legitimate need for access, including designated editors, relevant authors, reviewers, the publisher, research institutions, ethics committees, or authorized regulatory bodies.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is necessary to fulfill legal requirements, conduct an appropriate investigation, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, or comply with legitimate ethical obligations.

  1. Protection of Complainants

JNS will not impose adverse consequences on individuals solely because they have reported suspected misconduct in good faith.

Individuals submitting allegations are expected to communicate relevant information honestly, responsibly, and objectively.

Deliberately false accusations, defamatory statements, intimidation, harassment, threats, or reports intended to disrupt legitimate editorial procedures may be addressed separately under the journal's applicable policies.

  1. Interim Editorial Actions

Where an allegation presents a potential risk to the editorial process or published scholarly record, JNS may introduce temporary measures, including:

  • Deferring an editorial decision;
  • Postponing the publication of an article;
  • Temporarily suspending manuscript evaluation;
  • Replacing a reviewer affected by a conflict of interest;
  • Requesting additional research data or supporting documentation;
  • Recording an internal note in the manuscript's editorial history; or
  • Taking other necessary measures to prevent further harm.

The implementation of temporary measures does not, in itself, establish that research misconduct has occurred.

  1. Outcomes of a Misconduct Case

Following an appropriate assessment, JSR may determine that one or more of the following actions are warranted:

  1. Close the case when insufficient grounds exist for further action.
  2. Request additional explanations or necessary corrections.
  3. Rectify an identified editorial or procedural error.
  4. Reject the manuscript.
  5. Require a correction to an article already published.
  6. Publish an editorial notice.
  7. Issue an Expression of Concern.
  8. Retract a published article when justified.
  9. Replace an editor or reviewer affected by a conflict of interest.
  10. Restrict or terminate an individual's participation in editorial activities.
  11. Refer the case to the relevant research institution or competent authority.
  12. Implement other measures proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the identified misconduct.

In determining an appropriate response, JSR considers the seriousness of the concern, the strength of available evidence, the potential consequences for the scholarly record, whether the conduct appears intentional or inadvertent, and whether the identified problem can be adequately corrected.

  1. Actions Concerning Published Articles

When suspected misconduct concerns an article already published by JNS, the journal prioritizes the preservation of an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record.

Depending on the available evidence and outcome of the assessment, JNS may issue:

  • Correction: A formal amendment addressing an identified error that does not compromise the overall reliability of the published article.
  • Expression of Concern: A public editorial notice indicating significant unresolved questions about an article when the available evidence or ongoing investigation does not yet support a definitive conclusion.
  • Retraction: Formal withdrawal of an article from the reliable scholarly record when serious errors render its findings or conclusions unreliable or when substantial ethical violations justify such action.

Where reasonably feasible, these editorial actions will be communicated transparently and linked directly to the article concerned.

  1. Independence and Conflicts of Interest in Investigations

Individuals assigned to examine allegations of misconduct must maintain independence and impartiality throughout the process.

Where an editor has personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationships that could compromise objective judgment, responsibility for the case must be transferred to an independent editor or another authorized individual.

Decisions concerning alleged research misconduct must remain free from inappropriate pressure exerted by authors, reviewers, academic institutions, sponsors, or other parties lacking legitimate editorial authority.

  1. Case Documentation and Records

JNS maintains appropriate records of cases involving suspected research misconduct, including:

  • The date on which the allegation was received;
  • The identities of the individuals or organizations concerned, where available;
  • The nature and substance of the reported allegation;
  • Supporting evidence and documentation examined;
  • Relevant correspondence and explanations;
  • The assessment process and findings;
  • The editorial determination;
  • Measures implemented; and
  • Any necessary subsequent action or follow-up.

These records are retained to support procedural consistency, editorial accountability, and the integrity of the journal's publication practices.

  1. Cases Beyond the Journal's Authority

Where JNS lacks the authority or institutional capacity to establish facts requiring a formal investigation, particularly concerning research conduct or institutional procedures, the journal may refer the matter to the author's institution, research organization, ethics committee, publisher, or another appropriate authority.

JNS may await the findings of an institutional investigation when those findings are necessary to determine the appropriate editorial response.

Nevertheless, when the reliability of the scholarly record is at risk, JNS may undertake justified editorial action without waiting for the institutional investigation to conclude.

  1. Proportionality

JNS applies editorial and ethical measures in proportion to the nature and seriousness of the reported misconduct.

Minor administrative irregularities or errors that do not compromise research validity or integrity will not automatically receive the same treatment as fabrication, falsification, serious plagiarism, manipulation of peer review, or other substantial ethical violations.

Where supported by available evidence, the journal will distinguish between unintentional mistakes, administrative noncompliance, substantive research errors, and deliberate or repeated misconduct.

  1. Fair Treatment

All individuals involved in the examination of suspected research misconduct are entitled to fair and impartial treatment.

JNS will not interpret an unverified allegation as evidence that misconduct has occurred. Equally, the journal will not dismiss credible concerns solely because they involve an author, reviewer, editor, or another individual associated with JSR.

Editorial determinations will be guided by the available evidence, applicable journal policies, relevant publication ethics principles, and the responsibility to maintain the reliability of the scholarly record.

  1. Reference to Publication Ethics Guidance

In evaluating and addressing allegations of research misconduct, JNS may consult relevant principles, recommendations, and procedural guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), together with applicable standards of research integrity and ethical scholarly publication.

Where appropriate, the journal may adopt relevant case-handling procedures to ensure that allegations are examined fairly, consistently, objectively, and in proportion to the seriousness of the reported concern.

  1. Responsibilities of the Parties

24.1 Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • Submit truthful, accurate, and complete research-related information;
  • Safeguard the integrity of research data, methods, and procedures;
  • Provide explanations or clarification when requested;
  • Supply relevant supporting evidence or documentation when available;
  • Declare any relevant conflicts of interest; and
  • Cooperate reasonably with legitimate investigations into suspected research misconduct.

24.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • Examining allegations impartially and independently;
  • Protecting the confidentiality of case-related information;
  • Identifying and appropriately managing conflicts of interest;
  • Providing relevant parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond;
  • Maintaining adequate documentation of the examination process; and
  • Implementing or recommending editorial measures proportionate to the circumstances.

24.3 Reviewers

Reviewers are required to:

  • Preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated editorial information;
  • Report suspected research misconduct on the basis of reasonable concerns and relevant evidence;
  • Avoid speculative or unsupported allegations;
  • Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest; and
  • Refrain from exploiting information obtained through peer review for personal, institutional, or professional benefit.

24.4 Journal Neo Societal (JNS)

JNS is responsible for:

  • Maintaining an accessible procedure for reporting suspected research misconduct;
  • Assessing allegations impartially and consistently;
  • Safeguarding the integrity and independence of editorial procedures;
  • Implementing measures proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the case;
  • Communicating with relevant research institutions or competent authorities when justified; and
  • Preserving the credibility, reliability, and integrity of the published scholarly record.
  1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Neo Societal (JNS) is committed to addressing allegations of research misconduct through procedures that uphold fairness, independence, transparency, consistency, and proportionality. The journal does not regard an allegation as proof of wrongdoing without appropriate examination, nor will it disregard credible concerns supported by relevant information or evidence.

Where necessary, JNS may collaborate with academic institutions, research ethics committees, publishers, and other competent authorities to obtain information essential to the assessment and resolution of a case.

The central objectives of this policy are to uphold research integrity, ensure fair and accountable editorial procedures, and protect the accuracy, credibility, and reliability of the scholarly record, particularly within sociology and related social sciences.