Allegation of Research Misconduct
Jurnal Hurriah: Journal of Educational Evaluation and Research takes concerns regarding research and publication integrity with the utmost seriousness. This policy outlines how allegations concerning submitted manuscripts and published articles are reported, assessed, and resolved.
All allegations are handled fairly, confidentially where possible, and strictly on the basis of evidence. An allegation does not in itself establish misconduct; the journal distinguishes deliberate misrepresentation from honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement, while ensuring that any issues affecting the scholarly record are appropriately addressed.
On this page
1. Scope of Concerns
This policy covers suspected research misconduct and related breaches of publication integrity, including but not limited to:
?
Fabrication: Inventing data, research participants, interviews, observations, test scores, or findings.
?
Falsification: Manipulating, altering, or selectively omitting research data, statistical results, or evaluation procedures in a way that misrepresents the study.
?
Plagiarism: Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual property without appropriate acknowledgment or citation.
?
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 informed consent, compromising participant confidentiality, or conducting educational/field research without required ethical safeguards.
?
Undisclosed Competing Interests: Concealing relationships, financial interests, or institutional ties that could materially affect the interpretation or evaluation of the work.
?
Manipulation of Publication Processes: Falsifying reviewer identities, interfering with independent peer review, or manipulating citation metrics.
?
Misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Using AI tools to fabricate evidence or references, concealing uses that require disclosure, or breaching the journal's restrictions on AI in editorial work and peer review.
Note: Differences in theoretical perspective, educational methodology, 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 clearly 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 tracking number.
?
A specific description of the concern.
?
The precise passages, figures, tables, data points, or research procedures in question.
?
Supporting evidence, such as source comparisons, documents, data files, or verifiable links.
?
Relevant relationships or competing interests of the person reporting the concern.
?
Contact details for follow-up communication, if the reporter 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, secure 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's scope, and supported by information that warrants further examination.
The initial assessment may involve:
?
Checking the submitted manuscript, published article, and relevant editorial records.
?
Comparing the questioned content with cited evidence or original sources.
?
Requesting initial clarification from the person reporting the concern.
?
Seeking advice from an independent subject specialist or research integrity adviser.
?
Determining whether immediate precautionary steps are needed to protect research participants or the scholarly record.
Review, acceptance, or publication of a manuscript may be paused while a significant concern is examined. A pause is a precautionary measure and does not constitute a formal finding of misconduct.
Reports that lack sufficient supporting evidence may be closed with an explanation where appropriate. They may be reopened if material new evidence subsequently 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 co-authors. The journal will explain the substantive concerns and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe.
Authors may be requested to provide relevant source materials, raw data, research records, analytical procedures, ethics committee 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 will not be made public merely to resolve an inquiry.
If an author's response is inadequate, unavailable, or raises further concerns, the journal may seek an independent expert assessment or refer the matter to the relevant institution, employer, funding body, or research integrity organization.
The journal evaluates the reliability and suitability of content for publication. Formal investigations into individual professional misconduct are generally the responsibility of the authors' home institutions or authorized bodies.
Failure to respond to an inquiry is not, by itself, definitive proof of misconduct. However, the journal may make a final editorial decision based on the available evidence if substantial concerns remain unresolved. The voluntary withdrawal of a submission does not automatically end an integrity inquiry.
5. Editorial Outcomes
Editorial action will be proportionate to the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and its impact on the reliability and integrity of the work.
Before Publication
?
Close the inquiry and resume normal processing if the concern is satisfactorily resolved.
?
Require clarification, correction, additional disclosure, or supplementary review.
?
Reject the manuscript where significant integrity concerns or publication standards remain unmet.
?
Refer serious concerns to the appropriate institution or responsible regulatory body.
After Publication
CorrectionAddress a specific error or omission when the article's principal findings remain reliable.
Expression of ConcernAlert readers to significant unresolved issues when available evidence or an ongoing investigation does not yet support a definitive conclusion.
RetractionAddress sufficiently established problems that undermine the reliability, validity, or ethical integrity of the publication, in accordance with the journal's Correction and Retraction policy.
No AmendmentRetain the article unchanged when the evidence does not establish a need to alter the published record.
Public notices will explain the basis for the editorial action and link directly 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 formal retraction.
6. Confidentiality and Impartiality
Information regarding allegations will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or resolve the concern, subject to necessary institutional referrals and the publication of appropriate editorial notices. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in all circumstances.
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 of interest must recuse themselves from the case. Allegations concerning an editor will be handled by another independent editor. If the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, the matter will be referred directly to the publishing foundation for the appointment of an independent handler.
Editorial decisions will be based strictly on evidence and the integrity of the scholarly record, regardless of the status, institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal beliefs of the individuals involved.
7. Communication and Appeals
The journal will acknowledge reports where contact details are available and communicate material developments and final outcomes to the parties as appropriate. The extent of information shared may be limited by confidentiality requirements and ongoing institutional proceedings.
The time required to resolve a case depends on its complexity, the availability of evidence, and any external investigations. The journal strives to avoid unnecessary delay while ensuring a fair and thorough assessment.
An appeal against an editorial decision may be submitted through the Contact page where there is material new evidence, a demonstrated factual error, or a procedural fairness concern. Appeals must 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 rationale will be communicated to the appellant. An appeal does not automatically suspend actions deemed necessary to protect readers or the scholarly record.
