Allegations of Research Misconduct

Religious · Publication Ethics

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Religious: Jurnal Studi Agama-Agama dan Lintas Budaya takes concerns about research and publication integrity seriously. This policy explains how allegations concerning submitted manuscripts and published articles are reported, assessed, and addressed.

Allegations are considered fairly, confidentially where possible, and on the basis of evidence. An allegation does not itself establish misconduct. The journal distinguishes deliberate misrepresentation from honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement, while addressing any resulting problems in the scholarly record.

On this page

1. Scope of Concerns
2. Reporting an Allegation
3. Initial Assessment
4. Author Response and Further Examination
5. Editorial Outcomes
6. Confidentiality and Impartiality
7. Communication and Appeals

1. Scope of Concerns

This policy covers suspected research misconduct and related breaches of publication integrity, including:

• Fabrication: inventing data, research participants, interviews, observations, quotations, sources, or findings.
• Falsification: manipulating or selectively omitting data, evidence, images, or research procedures in a way that misrepresents the study.
• Plagiarism: presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, or other work without appropriate acknowledgement.
• Redundant or duplicate publication: publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure, justification, or reference to the earlier publication.
• Authorship misrepresentation: including ineligible authors, excluding eligible contributors, trading authorship, or providing false contribution statements.
• Ethical breaches: misrepresenting ethical approval or consent, compromising participant confidentiality, or conducting research without required ethical safeguards.
• Undisclosed competing interests: concealing relationships or interests that could materially affect the interpretation or evaluation of the work.
• Manipulation of publication processes: falsifying reviewer identities, interfering with independent review, or manipulating citations.
• Misuse of AI: using AI to fabricate evidence or references, concealing uses that require disclosure, or breaching the journal’s restrictions on AI in editorial work and peer review.

These examples are not exhaustive. Differences in theoretical perspective, religious interpretation, or scholarly judgment are not, by themselves, evidence of misconduct.

2. Reporting an Allegation

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other concerned individuals may report suspected misconduct to the editorial office through the journal’s Contact page. The subject line should identify the message as a research integrity concern.

A report should provide, where available:

• The manuscript or article title, author names, and DOI, URL, or submission number.
• A specific description of the concern.
• The passages, figures, tables, sources, or research procedures in question.
• Supporting evidence, such as source comparisons, documents, or verifiable links.
• Relevant relationships or competing interests of the person reporting the concern.
• Contact details for follow-up, if the person is willing to provide them.

Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. The journal may also examine concerns raised in public forums when the underlying evidence warrants assessment.

Reports should avoid unnecessary disclosure of participant identities or other sensitive information. Where confidential evidence is essential, the reporting person should contact the editorial office to arrange an appropriate method of submission.

3. Initial Assessment

An editor without a relevant conflict of interest will assess whether the report is sufficiently specific, relevant to the journal, and supported by information that warrants further examination.

The initial assessment may involve:

• Checking the manuscript, published article, and relevant editorial records.
• Comparing the questioned content with the cited evidence or original sources.
• Requesting clarification from the person reporting the concern.
• Seeking advice from an independent subject specialist or research integrity adviser.
• Determining whether immediate steps are needed to protect participants or the scholarly record.

Review, acceptance, or publication may be paused while a significant concern is examined. A pause is a precautionary measure and does not constitute a finding of misconduct.

Reports that lack sufficient evidence may be closed with an explanation where appropriate. They may be reopened if material new evidence becomes available.

4. Author Response and Further Examination

Where further examination is warranted, the journal will normally contact the corresponding author and, where appropriate, other affected authors. The journal will explain the substantive concerns and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond within a stated timeframe.

Authors may be asked to provide relevant source materials, research records, data, analytical procedures, ethics documentation, consent information, or an explanation of disputed contributions.

Requests for supporting materials will take account of confidentiality, consent restrictions, and the nature of the research. Sensitive participant information should not be made public merely to resolve an inquiry.

If the response is inadequate, unavailable, or raises further concerns, the journal may seek an independent assessment or refer the matter to the relevant institution, employer, funder, or research integrity body.

Failure to respond is not, by itself, proof of misconduct. However, the journal may make an editorial decision on the available evidence if substantial concerns remain unresolved. Withdrawal of a submission does not automatically end an integrity inquiry.

5. Editorial Outcomes

Action will be proportionate to the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and its effect on the reliability and integrity of the work.

Before publication

• Close the inquiry and resume processing if the concern is satisfactorily resolved.
• Require clarification, correction, additional disclosure, or further review.
• Reject the manuscript where significant integrity concerns or publication requirements remain unmet.
• Refer serious concerns to the appropriate institution or other responsible body.

After publication

• Correction: address a specific error or omission when the article’s principal findings remain reliable.
• Expression of concern: alert readers to significant unresolved concerns when the available evidence or an ongoing investigation does not yet support a final conclusion.
• Retraction: address sufficiently established problems that undermine the reliability or ethical integrity of the publication, in accordance with the journal’s Correction and Retraction policy.
• No amendment: retain the article unchanged when the evidence does not establish a need to alter the published record.

Public notices will explain the basis for the action and link to the affected article. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and does not necessarily imply deliberate misconduct; serious honest errors may also require retraction.

6. Confidentiality and Impartiality

Information will be shared only with those who need it to assess or resolve the concern, subject to necessary institutional referrals and publication of appropriate editorial notices. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

The journal will take reasonable steps to protect the identity of individuals reporting concerns in good faith and does not tolerate retaliation through its editorial processes. An unsubstantiated allegation is not automatically treated as a malicious report.

Editors with relevant conflicts must recuse themselves. Allegations concerning an editor will be handled by another independent editor. If the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, the matter will be referred to the publisher for the appointment of an independent handler.

Editorial decisions will be based on evidence and the integrity of the scholarly record, regardless of the status, affiliation, nationality, or beliefs of the individuals concerned.

7. Communication and Appeals

The journal will acknowledge reports where contact details are available and communicate material developments and outcomes to the parties as appropriate. The extent of information shared may be limited by confidentiality and ongoing institutional proceedings.

The time required depends on the complexity of the case, the availability of evidence, and any external investigation. The journal will seek to avoid unnecessary delay while allowing a fair assessment.

An appeal may be submitted through the Contact page where there is material new evidence, a factual error, or a concern about the fairness of the procedure. Appeals should identify the decision being challenged and provide specific supporting reasons.

Appeals will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. The outcome and its reasons will be communicated to the appellant. An appeal does not automatically suspend action needed to protect readers or the scholarly record.