Allegation Of Research Misconduct

PIJAR: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously. The journal adheres strictly to the guidelines and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to handle, investigate, and resolve potential ethical breaches before or after publication.

1. Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Fabrication: Making up data, results, observations, or student/participant samples and reporting them as factual.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or altering data and results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
  • Plagiarism: Appropriating another person’s ideas, processes, results, words, or teaching instruments without appropriate credit or citation. This includes text recycling/self-plagiarism without proper attribution.
  • Data Manipulation & Inappropriate Image/Graph Editing: Deliberately enhancing, obscuring, removing, or introducing features into data charts, instructional documentation, or statistical output to deceive readers or reviewers.
  • Citation Manipulation: Unnecessary inclusion of self-citations or coordinated citations to artificially increase citation counts.
  • Authorship Violations: Including honorary/gift/guest authors, omitting ghost authors, or submitting manuscripts without explicit consent from all contributors.

2. Reporting an Allegation

  • Anyone (reader, reviewer, editor, or third party) who suspects research misconduct in a manuscript under review or in a published article should notify the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial office via email.
  • Reports must be accompanied by detailed documentation, specific evidence (e.g., comparison of texts, overlapping datasets, conflicting statistical figures), and objective context supporting the claim.
  • Whistleblower identities are kept confidential throughout the initial assessment and investigative process, unless disclosure is legally required.

3. Investigation Procedures

  1. Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief and designated handling editors assess whether the allegation is credible, supported by actionable evidence, and falls under the scope of research misconduct.
  2. Contacting the Author(s): If a plausible case exists, the corresponding author is contacted in writing and provided with the specific concerns, allowing an opportunity to respond with raw data, original instrument records, or explanations within a defined timeframe (usually 14–21 days).
  3. Expert & Institutional Consultation: If the response is unsatisfactory, ambiguous, or reveals serious deception:
    • The editorial board may convene an independent ad-hoc review panel.
    • If necessary, the journal will notify the author’s affiliated institution or funding agency to conduct a formal institutional investigation.

4. Editorial Actions and Outcomes

Depending on the severity and outcome of the investigation, the editorial board may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Dismissal: If the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated or based on a misunderstanding, the case is formally closed with no public notice.
  • Rejection / Withdrawal: If misconduct is proven in an unpublished manuscript under review, the submission is rejected immediately, and the authors may be barred from future submissions.
  • Corrigendum / Erratum: For minor, unintentional errors that do not affect the main conclusions or integrity of the research, an official correction notice is published linked to the article.
  • Expression of Concern: If there is conclusive evidence that an investigation is ongoing but resolution may take considerable time, an Expression of Concern may be issued to alert readers.

Formal Retraction: For proven cases of fabrication, falsification, unresolvable plagiarism, or data falsification that invalidates the article's core findings, the article will be formally retracted in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. The original PDF will remain accessible but watermarked "RETRACTED", accompanied by a publicly accessible Retraction Note detailing the reason.