ADDITIONAL MENU
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research Integrity Policy
Allegations of Research Misconduct
This policy explains how Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika Lembab receives, assesses, and responds to allegations concerning the integrity of submitted or published scholarly work.
Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika Lembab (JATL), internationally titled Humid Tropical Agroecotechnology Journal, is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record. Every allegation will be considered fairly, confidentially, consistently, and on the basis of the available evidence.
Core Principle
Concerns Are Examined Without Presuming Guilt
An allegation is not itself proof of misconduct. JATL will seek relevant evidence, provide the person concerned with an opportunity to respond, and avoid conclusions until the available information has been assessed. Editorial action will focus primarily on the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record.
Definition
Research misconduct refers to conduct that seriously departs from accepted standards for proposing, conducting, reviewing, reporting, or publishing research. It may occur during research, manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, editorial processing, or after publication.
Misconduct is different from an honest error, a legitimate difference in scientific interpretation, or an academic disagreement. Nevertheless, unreliable or misleading published information may still require correction or retraction even when misconduct has not been established.
Forms of Research and Publication Misconduct
Fabrication
Inventing data, observations, participants, experimental results, references, or other research information and reporting them as genuine.
Falsification
Manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, images, or data, or omitting information so that the research is not accurately represented.
Plagiarism
Using another person's ideas, text, data, images, methods, or other intellectual output without appropriate acknowledgment or permission.
Image Manipulation
Inappropriate alteration, duplication, removal, relocation, or enhancement of image elements that could misrepresent the research evidence.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Submitting or publishing substantially the same work, data, or findings more than once without transparent disclosure and legitimate justification.
Authorship Misconduct
Guest, gift, honorary, or ghost authorship; omission of a qualifying author; unauthorized changes to authorship; or false statements about individual contributions.
Peer-Review Manipulation
Providing false reviewer identities, interfering with reviewer selection, submitting fabricated reviews, breaching confidentiality, or otherwise manipulating peer review.
Citation Manipulation
Coercing or arranging citations primarily to increase citation counts rather than because the references are relevant to the manuscript.
Ethical Non-Compliance
Conducting or reporting research without required ethical approval, consent, permits, safety measures, or protection of participants, animals, communities, or the environment.
Undisclosed Competing Interests
Concealing a financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other interest that could reasonably be perceived to influence the research or publication process.
Misuse of Confidential Material
Using or disclosing unpublished manuscripts, data, ideas, or review information obtained through a confidential editorial or peer-review process.
Publication-Process Manipulation
Coordinated or deceptive practices intended to bypass genuine authorship, editorial assessment, peer review, or research integrity controls.
Who May Submit an Allegation?
A concern may be submitted by an author, reviewer, editor, reader, research participant, institution, funder, publisher, or another person or organization possessing relevant information. The journal may also initiate an assessment when concerns are identified during editorial screening, peer review, or post-publication evaluation.
Submitting an Allegation
Reports should be made in good faith and contain enough specific information to permit an initial assessment. Whenever possible, a report should include:
- the title, DOI, URL, manuscript number, or other identification of the work concerned;
- a clear description of the suspected misconduct;
- the names of relevant persons or organizations, if known;
- supporting documents, original sources, images, data, or other evidence;
- an explanation of how the evidence supports the allegation; and
- the reporter's contact information so that clarification may be requested.
Anonymous Reports
JATL may consider an anonymous allegation when it provides specific, credible, and verifiable evidence. However, anonymity may limit the journal's ability to request clarification, communicate an outcome, or conduct a complete assessment. Unsupported or purely speculative allegations may not be pursued.
Assessment and Response Procedure
1
Receipt and Documentation
The journal records the concern and preserves the available correspondence and evidence. Receipt may be acknowledged when contact information has been provided.
2
Preliminary Assessment
An authorized editor determines whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibility and whether sufficient information exists to warrant further examination.
3
Conflict-Free Handling
An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not manage the case. The matter will be assigned to another authorized person who can act impartially.
4
Evidence Gathering
The journal may examine submitted files, similarity reports, images, data, peer-review records, correspondence, or other relevant material and may seek confidential expert advice.
5
Author or Respondent Clarification
The person concerned will ordinarily be informed of the substance of the concern in neutral terms and invited to provide an explanation and supporting evidence.
6
Institutional Referral
When the matter requires access to laboratory records, personnel, facilities, interviews, or disciplinary powers beyond the journal's authority, it may be referred to the relevant institution, funder, ethics committee, or regulatory body.
7
Evaluation of Findings
The editor assesses the evidence, explanations, expert advice, and relevant institutional findings to determine the appropriate editorial response.
8
Decision and Follow-Up
Appropriate editorial action is taken, relevant parties are informed as permitted, and the published record is amended when necessary.
Responsibilities of the Journal and Research Institutions
Responsibility of JATL
The journal evaluates publication-related evidence, ensures a fair editorial process, communicates with relevant parties, and protects the accuracy of submitted and published content.
Responsibility of Institutions
Research institutions ordinarily investigate the conduct of their researchers because they can access employment records, laboratory documentation, research files, witnesses, and institutional disciplinary procedures.
JATL may cooperate with institutions, publishers, funders, other journals, ethics committees, and regulatory bodies when necessary to resolve a concern. The journal retains responsibility for deciding whether and how its published record must be corrected.
Confidentiality and Fair Treatment
Information concerning an allegation will be shared only with persons who need it for assessment, investigation, advice, or corrective action, subject to applicable legal and institutional requirements. JATL will seek to protect the identity of a good-faith reporter when reasonably possible but cannot guarantee absolute anonymity when disclosure is required by law, due process, or an effective investigation.
The respondent will be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the matter and submit relevant evidence. The journal will avoid defamatory language, premature public statements, and unnecessary disclosure of personal information.
Good-Faith Reporting: A report made honestly on reasonable grounds will be considered even when the concern is ultimately not substantiated. Knowingly false, malicious, retaliatory, or harassing allegations may themselves be referred to an appropriate institution or authority.
Actions Before Publication
While a serious concern is being assessed, editorial or publication processing may be paused. Depending on the evidence, JATL may:
- request an explanation, original data, ethics approval, or supporting records;
- request correction or revision of the manuscript;
- seek an additional expert assessment;
- withdraw a reviewer or editor from the process;
- reject the manuscript;
- cancel acceptance before publication;
- contact all authors or other affected parties; or
- refer the concern to an institution, funder, publisher, or regulator.
Actions After Publication
Correction
Issued when a limited error or omission can be corrected without invalidating the principal findings of the article.
Expression of Concern
Issued when serious concerns exist but the available evidence remains inconclusive or an investigation is not yet complete.
Retraction
Issued when findings are unreliable, publication was seriously unethical, or misconduct substantially compromises the article.
Institutional Notification
Relevant institutions, funders, regulators, journals, or affected parties may be notified when necessary.
Notices affecting a published article will be clearly identified, publicly accessible, and linked to the original article. JATL will preserve the bibliographic record while clearly indicating its current publication status.
Failure to Respond
Failure by an author or another relevant party to respond does not prevent JATL from continuing its assessment or taking editorial action on the basis of reliable evidence. The journal may seek alternative contact details or request assistance from the person's institution.
Appeals
A person directly affected by an editorial action may submit a written appeal explaining the alleged factual or procedural error and supplying relevant evidence. An appeal should not merely repeat arguments already considered.
Whenever practicable, the appeal will be reviewed by an authorized editor or adviser who was not solely responsible for the original decision. An appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
Record Keeping
The journal may securely retain relevant allegations, responses, evidence, editorial assessments, institutional correspondence, and decisions for research-integrity, accountability, and publication-record purposes, subject to applicable privacy and data-protection requirements.
