Allegation of Research Misconduct

Introduction

Jurnal Teknik Kimia USU, published by Talenta Publisher, Universitas Sumatera Utara, is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of the scientific record. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles concerns arising before or after publication in a fair, transparent, and confidential manner.

This policy describes how the journal handles allegations of research misconduct in submitted manuscripts and published articles. It is based on the best practices, Core Practices, and relevant flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and complements the journal's Publication Ethics and Plagiarism Policy.

Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Fabrication: making up data, results, or sources and reporting them as genuine.

  • Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, or images, or omitting or altering data so that the research is not accurately represented.

  • Image manipulation: inappropriate manipulation, enhancement, duplication, or presentation of research images that may misrepresent the underlying data.

  • Plagiarism: using another person's ideas, data, words, or work without proper credit, including self-plagiarism and inappropriate text recycling.

  • Citation manipulation: excessive or inappropriate self-citation, citation coercion, or citation of sources that were not read or are irrelevant.

  • Authorship misconduct: gift, ghost, or guest authorship, or listing authors without their consent.

  • Duplicate or concurrent submission and redundant publication.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest or other violations of research ethics.

  • Unethical research practices, including failure to comply with applicable ethical, safety, or regulatory requirements.

  • Reviewer or editor misconduct, including breach of confidentiality and misuse of unpublished information.

Honest errors, differences in interpretation, and legitimate scientific disagreements are not considered research misconduct unless there is evidence of intentional or reckless misconduct.

Reporting an Allegation

Allegations may be raised by readers, reviewers, editors, authors, institutions, whistleblowers, or other parties, at any stage from submission to post-publication. Allegations should be submitted in writing to the editorial office at jtk@usu.ac.id, preferably including the article title, the nature of the concern, and supporting evidence where available.

  • Reports are acknowledged within 7 working days.

  • Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently detailed and verifiable evidence.

  • The identity of the complainant or whistleblower will be kept confidential and disclosed only when necessary for the investigation and with appropriate consideration for their protection.

Handling Procedure

  1. Initial assessment.
    The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board assess the allegation, determine whether it falls within the scope of research misconduct, and consider whether the complainant, editors, or reviewers involved have any conflict of interest. Editors with a conflict of interest will not participate in the investigation or decision-making process.

  2. Notification and response.
    If the concern appears credible, the corresponding author will be informed and asked to provide a detailed written response, together with relevant raw data or supporting documents where appropriate, on behalf of all co-authors within 14–30 days.

  3. Further review.
    The Editorial Board evaluates the response and may seek additional expert assessment, including subject-matter experts, statistical reviewers, image-integrity reviewers, or plagiarism assessment, when necessary.

  4. Institutional involvement.
    If there is substantial evidence that misconduct may have occurred, or if the author's response is inadequate, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant author's institution(s), research organization, or funder and request a formal investigation. The journal may also publish an Expression of Concern when necessary to alert readers while an investigation is ongoing.

  5. Decision.
    Following the available evidence and relevant COPE guidance, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board where appropriate, determines the appropriate outcome.

Possible Outcomes

Depending on the findings, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Unsubstantiated allegation: the case is closed when the available evidence does not support the allegation.

  • Honest error or minor issue: clarification, additional analysis, or publication of a Correction may be sufficient.

  • Serious concern under investigation: an Expression of Concern may be published when readers need to be alerted while further investigation is conducted.

  • Confirmed misconduct:

    • A manuscript under review may be rejected.

    • A published article may be retracted, with a retraction notice linked to the original article and stating the reason for retraction in accordance with COPE guidelines. The original article will remain accessible and will be clearly marked as retracted.

    • Retraction with replacement may be considered when the main findings remain valid but substantial corrections are required.

Sanctions

When research misconduct is confirmed, the journal may, depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct:

  • notify the authors' affiliated institution(s), research organization, or funder;

  • impose a temporary submission ban or other appropriate restrictions on authors;

  • remove an individual from reviewer or editorial roles, where applicable; and

  • take other actions considered appropriate to protect the integrity of the scientific record.

Protection of Complainants and Respondents

The journal will treat complainants, whistleblowers, respondents, authors, reviewers, and other parties involved in a misconduct investigation fairly and confidentially.

Good-faith complainants and whistleblowers will be protected from retaliation to the extent reasonably possible. Allegations that are knowingly false, fabricated, or malicious may themselves be considered misconduct.

Respondents will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations and provide relevant evidence before a decision is made.

Confidentiality and Documentation

All parties involved in a research misconduct investigation are expected to maintain confidentiality during the investigation and until a decision is made, except where disclosure is required by law, institutional procedures, or necessary for the proper conduct of the investigation.

The editorial office will maintain secure records of allegations, correspondence, evidence, expert assessments, and decisions related to the case.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by submitting a written explanation and, where applicable, new evidence to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision.

The appeal will be reviewed by editors or appropriate individuals who were not previously involved in the original investigation or decision. The appeal process does not necessarily suspend actions already taken to protect the integrity of the scientific record.