Allegations of Misconduct

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku (JIP) is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, transparency, and ethical standards of scholarly research and publication in psychology and behavioral sciences.

The journal takes all credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they arise before publication, during editorial assessment or peer review, or after an article has been published.

This policy has been developed with reference to the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku is committed to handling allegations fairly, objectively, confidentially, and consistently while protecting the rights of complainants, respondents, research participants, and other individuals involved.

The purpose of investigating suspected misconduct is to protect research integrity, correct the scholarly record when necessary, and prevent the dissemination of unreliable or unethical research.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to:

• Authors and co-authors submitting manuscripts to Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku.

• Editors, editorial board members, and guest editors.

• Peer reviewers and individuals involved in manuscript evaluation.

• Published articles and other scholarly content.

• Research institutions and individuals involved in research reported in the journal.

• Third parties who raise credible concerns about research or publication integrity.

Allegations may concern manuscripts under consideration, accepted manuscripts, online-first publications, or articles already published in a journal issue.

The journal may examine credible concerns regardless of when the alleged misconduct occurred.

3. Types of Research and Publication Misconduct

3.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's ideas, words, research findings, data, or intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

It may include:

• Copying text without proper citation or quotation.

• Paraphrasing another author's work without acknowledgment.

• Using unpublished research materials without authorization.

• Reproducing figures, tables, or research instruments without appropriate permission.

• Presenting another person's research findings as original work.

Similarity screening results are indicators requiring editorial interpretation and do not, by themselves, establish plagiarism.

3.2 Data Fabrication and Falsification

Data fabrication refers to inventing research data, observations, participants, interviews, experimental results, or other research evidence.

Data falsification involves manipulating research materials, procedures, measurements, analyses, or findings so that the published research does not accurately represent the underlying evidence.

Examples in psychological and behavioral research include:

• Creating fictitious survey respondents.

• Fabricating interview transcripts.

• Altering psychological assessment results.

• Manipulating experimental observations.

• Selectively modifying datasets to produce preferred findings.

• Misrepresenting statistical analyses or research outcomes.

Legitimate data cleaning, justified exclusions, and appropriate statistical transformations do not constitute misconduct when conducted transparently and accurately reported.

3.3 Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication occurs when substantially the same research findings are published or submitted for publication more than once without appropriate disclosure, attribution, permission, or justification.

Authors must disclose relevant previous dissemination of their research, including preprints, conference papers, theses, dissertations, and related publications.

The journal will evaluate potential overlap based on its nature, extent, originality, and the applicable publication policies.

3.4 Authorship Misconduct

Authorship misconduct includes practices that misrepresent scholarly contributions or accountability.

Examples include:

• Listing individuals who did not qualify for authorship.

• Omitting individuals who made qualifying contributions.

• Adding authors without their knowledge or approval.

• Misrepresenting author affiliations or contributions.

• Using fictitious identities.

• Making unauthorized authorship changes.

Authorship disputes that do not affect the reliability of research findings will not automatically result in retraction.

3.5 Unethical Research Practices

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku places particular emphasis on ethical conduct in research involving human participants.

Potential ethical violations include:

• Conducting research without required ethical approval or exemption.

• Failing to obtain appropriate informed consent.

• Violating participant confidentiality or privacy.

• Disclosing identifiable psychological or behavioral information without appropriate authorization.

• Exposing participants to unjustified psychological or physical harm.

• Failing to implement necessary safeguards for vulnerable participants.

• Misrepresenting participant recruitment or research procedures.

• Using psychological assessment instruments without necessary authorization.

The journal may request relevant ethics documentation and consult appropriate institutional authorities when serious concerns arise.

3.6 Peer Review and Editorial Manipulation

Misconduct affecting the editorial and peer review process may include:

• Providing false reviewer identities or contact information.

• Attempting to influence reviewers or editors improperly.

• Manipulating reviewer recommendations.

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

• Unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts.

• Misappropriation of unpublished research.

• Coercive or inappropriate citation requests.

• Manipulation of the submission or publication process.

3.7 Misrepresentation Involving Artificial Intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence or automated tools may constitute misconduct when it involves deception, fabrication, undisclosed involvement that materially misrepresents the work, or violation of applicable journal policies.

Examples include fabricated references, invented research data, false claims of human authorship or research activity, and unauthorized processing of confidential research information.

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, ethical compliance, and integrity of all submitted content, including material produced with AI assistance.

4. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Concerns regarding potential research or publication misconduct may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, institutions, or other individuals with relevant information.

Reports should be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact channels.

Whenever possible, a report should include:

1. The title, author names, DOI, or manuscript identification number of the work concerned.

2. A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

3. Relevant supporting evidence or documentation.

4. An explanation of how the concern affects research or publication integrity.

5. Contact information for follow-up communication, when the complainant is willing to provide it.

Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible evidence.

The journal will not automatically dismiss a concern solely because the complainant's identity is unknown.

5. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct a preliminary assessment.

The initial assessment will consider:

• Whether the allegation falls within the journal's editorial responsibility.

• Whether sufficient information is available for examination.

• Whether the concern relates to research integrity, publication ethics, or another matter.

• Whether there is an apparent conflict of interest involving the individuals responsible for handling the case.

• Whether immediate action is necessary to prevent potential harm.

The editorial team may request clarification or additional supporting documentation.

Allegations that are demonstrably unfounded may be closed with an appropriate record of the assessment.

Credible allegations requiring further examination will proceed to an appropriate investigation or institutional referral.

6. Investigation Procedure

6.1 Appointment of Responsible Editors

The Editor-in-Chief will oversee the editorial handling of suspected misconduct unless a conflict of interest requires reassignment to an independent editor or other appropriate authority.

Individuals directly implicated in an allegation must not control the investigation or determine its outcome.

6.2 Collection and Examination of Evidence

Depending on the allegation, the journal may examine:

• Submitted and published manuscript versions.

• Similarity screening reports.

• Research data and supporting documentation.

• Ethics approval or exemption records.

• Author contribution statements.

• Peer review records and editorial correspondence.

• Relevant previously published research.

• Other evidence necessary to assess the concern.

The journal will seek to protect confidential information and personal data throughout the process.

6.3 Author Response and Right to Explanation

Authors or other individuals concerned should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before an adverse editorial decision is finalized.

The journal may request explanations, corrections, research documentation, or other evidence.

Failure to respond may be considered in the editorial assessment but does not, by itself, establish misconduct.

6.4 Institutional Involvement

Where allegations require investigation beyond the journal's authority or expertise, the editorial team may contact the relevant research institution, ethics committee, or other responsible body.

Institutional involvement may be particularly appropriate for allegations involving fabricated research data, serious participant harm, research ethics violations, or systematic misconduct.

The journal will distinguish its responsibility for publication decisions from the institution's responsibility for determining disciplinary or employment-related matters.

6.5 Confidentiality and Fairness

Information obtained during an investigation will be handled confidentially to the extent compatible with a fair investigation, necessary institutional cooperation, legal obligations, and the protection of the scholarly record.

The journal will avoid premature public accusations and will base editorial actions on documented concerns and the available evidence.

7. Editorial Actions and Outcomes

The appropriate outcome will depend on the nature, seriousness, and substantiation of the concern.

7.1 Manuscripts Under Review

For manuscripts that have not yet been published, possible actions include:

• Requesting clarification or supporting documentation.

• Requiring correction or revision.

• Suspending editorial assessment while serious concerns are examined.

• Rejecting the manuscript when publication standards are not met.

• Referring credible concerns to an appropriate institution.

7.2 Published Articles

For published articles, possible actions include:

Correction: A correction may be published when a documented error can be remedied without invalidating the principal findings or conclusions.

Expression of Concern: An expression of concern may be issued when serious questions about the reliability or integrity of an article remain unresolved and available evidence does not yet justify retraction.

Retraction: Retraction may be appropriate when the journal determines that the findings or conclusions are unreliable, or when other grounds for retraction are established under the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Removal: Removal of published content will be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as compelling legal requirements, serious privacy violations, or significant safety risks.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record, not to punish authors.

8. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku recognizes that research institutions have an important role in investigating potential misconduct involving their researchers, employees, students, or affiliated personnel.

The journal may cooperate with institutions by sharing relevant information through appropriate and secure channels, subject to applicable confidentiality and legal requirements.

Institutional findings will be considered when determining appropriate editorial action.

The journal retains responsibility for deciding whether a manuscript should be accepted, rejected, corrected, or retracted.

9. Protection of Complainants and Respondents

The journal is committed to fair treatment of individuals who report concerns in good faith and those who are the subject of allegations.

The journal will not tolerate retaliation within its editorial processes against individuals who raise legitimate research integrity concerns.

At the same time, allegations must not be treated as established facts before appropriate assessment.

Reports submitted maliciously or containing deliberately fabricated evidence may be addressed through appropriate editorial or institutional procedures.

10. Post-Investigation Communication

Following an investigation, the editorial team will determine what information can appropriately be communicated to the parties involved.

Where an editorial action affects a published article, the journal will provide a sufficiently clear public notice, consistent with applicable COPE guidance.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should be linked to the affected article and remain publicly accessible.

The journal will seek to maintain accurate article metadata and appropriate records of post-publication editorial actions.

11. Record Keeping

The editorial office will maintain appropriate records of allegations, relevant correspondence, supporting evidence, assessments, decisions, and actions taken.

Access to investigation records will be restricted to authorized individuals with legitimate responsibilities.

Personal information and confidential research materials will be handled in accordance with applicable privacy requirements and the journal's records retention policies.

12. Policy Review and Continuous Improvement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku will periodically review this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, research integrity, and relevant COPE guidance.

Material policy revisions should be communicated transparently through the journal website.

The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that the policy remains consistent with related policies concerning authorship, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, peer review, research ethics, corrections, and retractions.

References

1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidance and Resources. https://publicationethics.org/guidance

3. COPE Council. COPE Retraction Guidelines. Version 3, August 2025. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12