Allegation of research misconduct

Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

JMB: Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis — Master of Management Study Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang

COPE Standards Zero-Tolerance Policy Publication Ethics & Integrity

JMB: Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis is firmly committed to upholding the highest integrity and rigorous ethical principles in scientific publishing. The journal adheres strictly to the guidelines and core practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Editorial Board exercises a zero-tolerance stance toward all forms of scientific malpractice, data distortion, or breaches of authorial honesty. All reported or discovered allegations of misconduct undergo rigorous, systematic, and transparent handling.

1. Categories of Research Misconduct Covered

The journal investigates any credible allegations of ethical violations that compromise scientific validity, intellectual property rights, or the integrity of the peer-review process, including but not limited to:

A. Plagiarism & Self-Plagiarism (Text Recycling):

The appropriation of another author's ideas, processes, results, or text without explicit acknowledgement, appropriate citation, or quotation. This includes redundant publication, duplicate submission, and substantial reuse of one’s own previously published work without disclosure (*text recycling*).

B. Data Fabrication & Falsification:

The fabrication of non-existent research data, empirical observations, or experimental outcomes, as well as the deliberate falsification, selective reporting, or deceptive manipulation of statistical models, datasets, or visual figures to distort findings.

C. Authorship & Contributorship Disputes:

Violations of recognized authorship criteria (e.g., ICMJE guidelines), including the inclusion of guest or gift authors who made no substantive intellectual contribution, the omission of genuine contributors (ghost authorship), or unauthorized alterations of the author list without collective mutual consent.

D. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest:

Failure by authors, reviewers, or editorial members to disclose direct or indirect financial, institutional, personal, or professional ties that could reasonably influence research interpretations, review judgements, or editorial decision-making.

E. Peer Review Manipulation & Fraud:

Fabricating reviewer identities, submitting falsified contact information, illicit ring-review arrangements, coercive citation demands, or improper third-party intervention designed to undermine the objective independence of the double-blind review process.

2. Investigation Procedure & Due Process

Investigations are guided by the official COPE Flowcharts to ensure consistency, impartiality, and confidentiality throughout the review:

Step 1

Reporting & Receipt

Allegations may be submitted by editors, reviewers, readers, or whistleblowers with supporting evidence directly to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected].

Step 2

Ad-Hoc Committee

The Editor-in-Chief constitutes an independent ad-hoc integrity committee or designates senior editorial members with no conflicts of interest to inspect documentation.

Step 3

Due Process & Defense

In accordance with the presumption of good faith, the accused author is formally notified in writing and given a reasonable timeframe (typically 14–21 days) to provide clarifications and raw data.

Step 4

Final Determination

The committee submits an assessment report to the Editor-in-Chief, who renders a definitive decision in full alignment with COPE guidelines and university policies.

3. Sanctions & Corrective Measures

When research misconduct or critical ethical malpractice is substantiated, the Editorial Board enacts formal corrective measures proportional to the gravity of the infraction:

Corrective Measure Applicable Stage Operational Procedure
Immediate Rejection / Desk Reject Unpublished / Under Review Immediate termination of peer review, formal rejection on OJS, and notification to co-authors.
Formal Erratum / Corrigendum Published Article (Minor Inaccuracy) Issuing a linked, citable correction notice for unintentional errors without evidence of fraudulent intent.
Formal Article Retraction Published Article (Severe Misconduct) Publishing an official Retraction Note, stamping the PDF article as "RETRACTED", and notifying major indexing databases.
Institutional Escalation & Embargo Persistent / Grave Fraud Submitting a formal report to the author's university ombudsman/rectorate and enforcing a 1- to 3-year submission ban.

Reporting Misconduct & Confidential Inquiries

Individuals who identify or suspect breaches of research ethics in published articles or ongoing submissions are urged to contact the Editor-in-Chief in confidence at [email protected] or [email protected]. Reports must include the article DOI/title and verifiable documentary evidence.