Allegations of Research Misconduct

1. General Policy and Commitment to Research Integrity

Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (JIIP) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, transparency, and credibility of scholarly research published in the journal. The journal takes all credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and establishes appropriate procedures for receiving, evaluating, documenting, and responding to concerns involving submitted manuscripts and published articles.
JIIP adopts the principles outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice on Allegations of Misconduct, which requires journals to establish clearly described procedures for addressing allegations raised before or after publication, regardless of how those allegations are brought to the journal's attention.
The journal recognises that responsible handling of misconduct allegations requires fair procedures, careful examination of evidence, appropriate confidentiality, and the protection of the scholarly record. Allegations must not be treated as established misconduct without sufficient supporting evidence and an appropriate assessment process.
JIIP follows the principles of collaboration and institutional responsibility described in the COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases. The journal is responsible for maintaining the accuracy of published content, while research institutions ordinarily undertake formal investigations into the conduct of their researchers.

2. Scope and Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to conduct that violates recognised standards of research integrity and may compromise the authenticity, reliability, attribution, ethical acceptability, or interpretation of scholarly findings. Concerns may arise during research planning, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial processing, or after publication.
JIIP recognises that research integrity concerns extend beyond the traditional categories of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The COPE Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct acknowledge that unacceptable research practices may involve authorship, data management, research reporting, manipulation of the publication process, and other practices that undermine the reliability of the scholarly record.
The journal evaluates suspected misconduct according to the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, its effects on research reliability, and the relevant publication circumstances. Honest errors, methodological disagreements, and differences in scientific interpretation must be distinguished from intentional deception or other unacceptable research practices.

3. Categories of Research and Publication Misconduct

3.1. Data Fabrication. Data fabrication involves inventing research observations, experimental measurements, survey responses, laboratory results, or other research information and presenting them as genuine findings. In agricultural research, fabrication may involve fictitious crop yield measurements, soil analyses, livestock performance records, field observations, or laboratory testing results.
3.2. Data Falsification. Data falsification involves improperly manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, measurements, or reported results so that the research record no longer accurately represents the underlying investigation. This may include selective alteration or omission of experimental results intended to mislead readers.
3.3. Plagiarism. Plagiarism occurs when an author presents another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, or other intellectual contributions as original work without appropriate acknowledgement. JIIP assesses suspected plagiarism in accordance with its Plagiarism Policy and the COPE Core Practice on Intellectual Property.
3.4. Inappropriate Image Manipulation. Image manipulation involves altering, duplicating, removing, or modifying visual research evidence in a manner that misrepresents the original observations. Such conduct may involve laboratory photographs, microscopy images, plant disease photographs, agricultural field images, or other visual data. The journal considers the procedures described in the COPE Flowchart on Image Manipulation in a Published Article when evaluating relevant concerns.
3.5. Duplicate or Redundant Publication. Duplicate publication involves publishing substantially overlapping research findings without adequate disclosure, attribution, or scientific justification. Authors must disclose relevant previous publications and identify the distinct contribution of each manuscript.
3.6. Authorship Manipulation. Authorship manipulation includes ghost authorship, guest authorship, honorary authorship, inappropriate omission of legitimate contributors, and unauthorised changes to authorship attribution. These practices conflict with the COPE Core Practice on Authorship and Contributorship.
3.7. Citation Manipulation. Citation manipulation involves inappropriate attempts to influence citation patterns through coercion, irrelevant citations, coordinated citation arrangements, or other practices intended to artificially increase citation counts rather than support scholarly argumentation.
3.8. Peer Review Manipulation. Peer review manipulation may include fabricated reviewer identities, falsified reviewer reports, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorised intervention in the review process, or coordinated attempts to influence editorial decisions.
3.9. Undisclosed Competing Interests. Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, research interpretation or editorial assessment. This obligation reflects the COPE Core Practice on Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests.
3.10. Unethical Research Practices. Research involving human participants, personal information, animal experimentation, or environmentally sensitive activities must comply with applicable ethical requirements, institutional procedures, and relevant laws. Concerns involving informed consent, participant protection, animal welfare, or unauthorised use of confidential information may constitute research integrity issues requiring further assessment.

4. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

JIIP welcomes credible reports concerning potential research misconduct from authors, reviewers, readers, research institutions, funding organisations, editorial personnel, and other individuals with relevant information.
Any individual wishing to report suspected misconduct may contact the Editor-in-Chief or the journal's editorial office through the official contact information available on the JIIP website. Reports should identify the relevant manuscript or published article, describe the alleged concern, and provide supporting documentation where available.
JIIP handles allegations in accordance with the COPE Core Practice on Allegations of Misconduct, which specifically includes allegations received from whistleblowers and requires journals to maintain appropriate procedures for responding to such reports.
Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information to support a meaningful preliminary assessment. The absence of an identified complainant does not automatically invalidate a credible concern, although insufficient evidence may limit the journal's ability to investigate.
Individuals submitting allegations are encouraged to provide accurate information and avoid knowingly false or misleading accusations. The journal will assess concerns on their merits and will not assume that an allegation is substantiated merely because it has been submitted.

5. Confidentiality and Protection of Complainants

JIIP will handle research misconduct allegations with appropriate confidentiality to protect the integrity of the assessment process, the rights of individuals involved, and information that may be sensitive or unpublished.
The journal will seek to protect the identity of complainants where reasonably possible, subject to applicable legal requirements, procedural fairness, and the practical needs of investigation. The COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals recognise that information exchange during misconduct investigations may be restricted by confidentiality obligations, including the protection of whistleblowers.
Information concerning an allegation will be shared only with individuals or institutions whose involvement is reasonably necessary to assess the concern, investigate relevant evidence, or implement appropriate corrective measures.
JIIP does not permit retaliatory editorial treatment against individuals solely because they have raised a credible research integrity concern in good faith. Reports and responses will be considered impartially, without discrimination or prejudgment.

6. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving a credible allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and whether sufficient information is available to justify further examination.
The preliminary assessment may include reviewing the manuscript or article, examining relevant source material, comparing research data, inspecting figures or tables, analysing similarity reports, and consulting independent specialists when necessary.
The editorial team should document the concern, available evidence, actions undertaken, correspondence, and reasons for subsequent decisions. These procedures support the accountable editorial management described in the COPE Core Practices on Journal Management and Allegations of Misconduct.
When the allegation is insufficiently supported, the editor may request additional clarification or conclude that no further editorial action is warranted at that stage. The journal may reconsider the matter if significant new evidence becomes available.
A preliminary assessment does not constitute a formal determination that an individual has committed research misconduct.

7. Communication With Authors and Right to Respond

Where a concern requires further investigation, the editorial team will ordinarily communicate the relevant issues to the corresponding author and request a written explanation or supporting documentation.
The journal follows the procedural principles outlined in the COPE Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct, which emphasise appropriate communication among editors, researchers, and institutions when concerns arise about the reliability of scholarly findings.
Authors may be asked to provide original research data, laboratory records, field notes, survey instruments, analytical files, relevant correspondence, research ethics approvals, or other documentation necessary to clarify the concern.
The individuals concerned must receive a reasonable opportunity to respond to relevant allegations. Explanations and evidence will be assessed objectively, taking account of the research context, methodological procedures, and the seriousness of the suspected problem.
Failure to respond or provide requested information may affect the journal's ability to verify the reliability of the research. However, non-response alone must not automatically be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct.

8. Cooperation With Research Institutions

JIIP recognises that journal editors generally do not possess the institutional authority or investigative resources needed to determine responsibility for serious research misconduct. Formal investigation of a researcher's conduct ordinarily falls within the responsibilities of the relevant research institution or competent authority.
The COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals, Version 2, March 2024 distinguish the responsibilities of institutions for investigating research conduct from the responsibilities of journals for safeguarding the reliability and integrity of the published record.
When the allegation requires formal investigation, JIIP may contact the relevant research integrity office, institutional leadership, funding organisation, or other competent body and provide appropriate supporting information.
The journal may request information concerning the progress or findings of an institutional investigation, subject to confidentiality, data protection, and applicable legal restrictions.
Even where an institution does not establish intentional misconduct, the journal may still need to correct the published record if the article contains materially unreliable or misleading findings. This distinction reflects the COPE recommendations concerning research reliability and institutional investigations.

9. Procedures for Misconduct Allegations Before Publication

When suspected misconduct is identified in a manuscript under editorial consideration, JIIP may temporarily suspend the review or publication process while conducting a preliminary assessment or obtaining relevant explanations.
The editor may consult reviewers, independent subject specialists, or the authors' institution when the available evidence requires technical or institutional assessment. Suspected fabrication, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, or peer review fraud must be evaluated according to the circumstances of the case.
The journal may consider the procedures described in the COPE Flowcharts for Addressing Suspected Publication Misconduct, including the recommendation to gather evidence, request explanations without making premature accusations, and contact relevant institutions when necessary.
Where a concern can be resolved through reasonable clarification or correction, editorial consideration may continue. If serious misconduct is established or the manuscript's reliability cannot be adequately demonstrated, the journal may reject the submission and take any additional action justified by the available evidence.
Rejection does not prevent the journal from communicating serious research integrity concerns to an appropriate institution when such communication is necessary and justified.

10. Procedures for Misconduct Allegations After Publication

JIIP will evaluate credible concerns about published articles even when those concerns arise months or years after publication. The journal's responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record continues after an article becomes publicly accessible.
The editorial team may review supporting evidence, consult independent specialists, request explanations from authors, or seek institutional investigation where appropriate. The journal will consider whether the reported issue affects only a limited part of the article or substantially compromises its central findings.
JIIP follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines, which establish that retraction primarily serves to correct the scholarly literature and alert readers to unreliable findings rather than punish individual researchers.
Appropriate post-publication action may include a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another editorial notice justified by the available evidence. The journal must distinguish between errors that can be corrected without invalidating the central conclusions and problems that make the findings substantially unreliable.
Where an institutional investigation remains unresolved but credible concerns about the reliability of published findings require public attention, the journal may consider issuing an expression of concern.

11. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

11.1. Corrections. A correction may be published when an article contains identifiable errors that require amendment but do not invalidate its principal findings or overall conclusions. The correction should clearly identify the affected article and explain the changes.
11.2. Expressions of Concern. An expression of concern may be appropriate when credible evidence raises serious questions about an article's reliability but the available information is inconclusive or a relevant investigation remains pending. Such notices should accurately describe the unresolved concern without presenting allegations as established facts.
11.3. Retractions. Retraction may be necessary when reliable evidence establishes that an article contains substantially unreliable findings, serious plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or other problems that justify withdrawal from the active scholarly record.
The journal applies the distinctions explained in the COPE Retraction Guidelines, which recognise corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions as different mechanisms for maintaining the reliability and transparency of scholarly literature.
Post-publication notices should clearly identify the relevant article, explain the reason for editorial action, and remain electronically linked to the original publication. Retraction notices should be accessible to readers, while the original article should ordinarily remain available with a clear indication of its retracted status unless exceptional legal or ethical circumstances require content removal.

12. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Impartiality

Editors responsible for handling allegations must declare and appropriately manage competing interests that could compromise their impartiality. An editor with a relevant personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict should not independently determine the outcome of the allegation.
JIIP follows the COPE Core Practice on Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests, which requires clear mechanisms for identifying and managing relevant conflicts involving authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and publishers.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is directly involved in an allegation or has a substantial competing interest, the matter should be assigned to an appropriately independent editor or an authorised representative of the publisher.
Editorial decisions must rely on documented evidence, the scientific reliability of the research, and the journal's ethical requirements rather than personal relationships, institutional status, or external pressure.

13. Complaints and Appeals

Authors and other affected parties may submit a reasoned appeal concerning an editorial decision related to an allegation of research misconduct. An appeal should identify the disputed decision, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting evidence.
The COPE Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals recommends that journals maintain clearly described procedures for handling complaints involving journal decisions, editorial staff, editorial boards, and publishers.
Appeals will be assessed according to the available evidence and the journal's applicable procedures. Where practicable, an appeal should be reviewed by an individual who was not directly responsible for the original disputed decision.
The appeal procedure does not guarantee reversal of an editorial decision. Reconsideration will be based on substantive new evidence, demonstrable factual errors, procedural irregularities, or other circumstances that justify further assessment.

14. Documentation and Recordkeeping

JIIP should maintain appropriate confidential records of misconduct allegations, including the original report, supporting documents, editorial assessments, communications with authors, institutional correspondence, and the reasons for final decisions.
Recordkeeping supports procedural consistency, institutional cooperation, accountability, and the ability to review editorial actions where necessary. The COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals provide a framework for appropriate information exchange and coordinated handling of research integrity concerns.
Access to confidential investigation records should be limited to authorised personnel with legitimate responsibilities. Records must be managed according to applicable legal requirements, institutional retention procedures, and the journal's privacy and confidentiality policies.

15. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Authors are responsible for the authenticity of their research, the accuracy of reported findings, the originality of submitted manuscripts, proper attribution of intellectual contributions, compliance with research ethics requirements, and cooperation with legitimate editorial inquiries.
Reviewers should report credible concerns about data reliability, plagiarism, image manipulation, research ethics, or other potential misconduct discovered during manuscript evaluation. Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality and provide sufficiently specific information to support appropriate editorial assessment.
Editors are responsible for assessing credible allegations impartially, obtaining relevant evidence, communicating concerns appropriately, managing competing interests, cooperating with institutions where necessary, and implementing justified editorial corrections.

16. Policy Implementation and Continuous Review

The Editor-in-Chief, editorial team, and publisher of JIIP are responsible for implementing this policy within their respective areas of authority. The journal will seek to ensure that research integrity concerns receive fair consideration and that editorial decisions protect the reliability and credibility of published scholarly work.
JIIP may periodically review and update this policy to reflect developments in research integrity standards, scholarly publishing practices, institutional requirements, and guidance issued by relevant publication ethics organisations.
All authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the publication process are expected to uphold the principles of research integrity, transparency, confidentiality, accountability, and fair treatment established in this policy.