Research Misconduct Policy

Upholding Academic Integrity in Jurnal Kanayagan
 

Jurnal Kanayagan is deeply committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. We treat all allegations of research misconduct—whether identified before or after publication—with utmost seriousness. All cases are handled equitably, confidentially, and in strict accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Our process relies on evidence-based assessment, the presumption of good faith until proven otherwise, and the protection of whistle-blowers. As a journal, our role is to evaluate evidence and refer matters to appropriate institutions rather than conducting independent investigations.

1. Definitions of Misconduct

Core Research Misconduct: This encompasses Fabrication (inventing data, sources, or results), Falsification (manipulating or selectively omitting data/methods to misrepresent findings), and Plagiarism (uncredited use of others' ideas, text, or data, including translation plagiarism and utilizing unpublished work).

Unacceptable Publication Practices: The journal strictly prohibits:

  • Duplicate/redundant publication, simultaneous submissions, and self-plagiarism.
  • "Salami slicing" (unjustifiably dividing a study into minimal publications).
  • Authorship manipulation (ghost, guest, or gift authorship).
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest and ethical breaches involving human participants.
  • Citation or peer-review manipulation (e.g., fake reviewers, coercive citations).
  • Involvement with paper mills, fraudulent manuscripts, or text-spinning tools.
  • Undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative AI (e.g., listing AI as an author or fabricating citations).

2. Prevention, Detection, and Reporting

Screening & Verification: All authors must explicitly declare the originality of their work, COI, ethical approvals, and any AI utilization upon submission. Manuscripts undergo rigorous similarity screening (e.g., Turnitin/Crossref). The acceptable threshold is a maximum of 20% overall similarity, with no single source exceeding 1%. Editors continually check for data anomalies, tortured phrases, and paper-mill indicators.

Reporting Allegations: Anyone may report suspected misconduct by emailing the Editor-in-Chief with the subject line "Research integrity concern – [DOI/Manuscript ID]". Reports must include specific, verifiable evidence. We accept anonymous reports if supported by concrete evidence. The identity of whistle-blowers acting in good faith is kept strictly confidential. Malicious or demonstrably false allegations are treated as misconduct.

3. Investigation Procedures

Pre-Publication: If a concern arises, the peer-review or production process is immediately suspended. Editors gather evidence within 14 days and request an explanation from the corresponding author (giving a 14–30 day window). Depending on the response, the manuscript may resume review, require mandatory revisions, or face immediate rejection and institutional referral.

Post-Publication: For published articles, the Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report within 7 days and conducts a preliminary assessment. If credible, authors are given 30 days to respond. Unsatisfactory or absent responses prompt the journal to contact the authors' institutions. During lengthy investigations, an Expression of Concern may be published, eventually leading to a Correction or Retraction.

Editorial Staff: Allegations against reviewers or editors are handled independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a senior board member, ensuring the implicated individual is entirely excluded from the investigation process.

4. Outcomes, Sanctions, and Appeals

Proportionate Sanctions: Corrective actions are scaled to the severity and intentionality of the misconduct. Outcomes range from educational warning letters and mandatory manuscript revisions to outright rejection, formal retractions, institutional notification, and multi-year submission bans (typically 2–5 years). Affected publishers or journals will be notified in cases of duplicate submission or paper-mill activity.

Fairness & Records: Information regarding any case is restricted to a strict need-to-know basis. Authors are not publicly identified unless a formal public notice (e.g., Retraction) is necessary. Authors have the right to appeal decisions within 30 days by presenting new evidence to an independent editor. The journal securely retains all confidential misconduct records for a minimum of five years.