Allegation of Research Misconduct

JELTL is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and credibility of scholarly publishing. All allegations of research misconduct are taken seriously and handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with established publication ethics principles.

1. Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes actions that undermine the integrity, reliability, or originality of research and scholarly publication in JELTL. Examples include, but are not limited to:

  • Fabrication: Making up research data, results, or experimental findings and reporting them as genuine.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or data, or selectively changing or omitting results in a way that misrepresents the research.
  • Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, images, or other work without appropriate acknowledgment.
  • Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure or justification.
  • Authorship Misconduct: Improperly assigning, omitting, adding, or changing authorship, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
  • Data and Image Manipulation: Inappropriately altering, manipulating, or misrepresenting research data, figures, images, or other evidence.
  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose financial, professional, or personal interests that could improperly influence the research or its evaluation.
  • Peer-Review Manipulation: Interfering with the peer-review process, including providing false reviewer identities or attempting to improperly influence editorial decisions.
  • Ethical Violations: Conducting research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data without required ethical approval, consent, or appropriate safeguards.
  • Misleading Declarations: Providing false or materially inaccurate information about funding, ethical approval, data availability, or other research-related declarations.

Honest errors, differences in scientific interpretation, or legitimate methodological disagreements do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Each allegation is assessed based on the available evidence and circumstances.

2. Reporting Allegations

Any individual who has reasonable concerns about possible research misconduct in a manuscript submitted to or published by JELTL may report the matter to the editorial office.

Reports should include as much relevant information as possible, such as:

  • The title of the manuscript or published article.
  • The names of the authors, where known.
  • A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
  • Supporting evidence, documents, data, or relevant references.

JELTL encourages reports made in good faith and will not tolerate deliberate attempts to make malicious or knowingly false allegations against authors, reviewers, editors, or other researchers.

3. Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the editor or an appropriately designated editorial representative will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within JELTL's remit and whether sufficient information is available to proceed.

The assessment may include checking the submitted manuscript, published article, research data, similarity reports, images, citations, author declarations, and other relevant evidence.

If the allegation is outside JELTL's remit or lacks sufficient supporting information, JELTL may request clarification or close the matter with an appropriate explanation.

4. Investigation Procedure

When an allegation warrants further examination, JELTL will conduct a fair and impartial assessment. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the procedure may include:

  1. Reviewing the allegation and available supporting evidence.
  2. Requesting an explanation, clarification, or relevant documentation from the corresponding author or other involved parties.
  3. Consulting independent experts, reviewers, or relevant institutional representatives when necessary.
  4. Assessing the responses and evidence objectively, while allowing the individuals concerned an appropriate opportunity to respond.
  5. Contacting the relevant research institution, funder, or other appropriate body when the matter requires formal investigation beyond JELTL's authority.
  6. Reaching an editorial decision based on the available evidence and applicable publication ethics standards.

JELTL's investigation is intended to determine the appropriate editorial response. It does not replace a formal institutional investigation where one is necessary.

5. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Allegations will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair investigation. Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations that need it to assess or resolve the concern, subject to applicable legal and ethical obligations.

JELTL will seek to protect the rights and reputations of complainants and individuals accused of misconduct. An allegation will not be treated as proof of wrongdoing, and no adverse conclusion will be reached without an appropriate assessment of the available evidence.

JELTL does not permit retaliation against individuals who raise genuine concerns in good faith or cooperate with an investigation.

6. Editorial Actions and Outcomes

Depending on the nature, severity, and findings of the investigation, JELTL may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Request corrections, clarification, additional data, or supporting documentation.
  • Reject a manuscript when serious concerns remain unresolved or misconduct is established.
  • Publish a correction or corrigendum when the published record requires amendment.
  • Publish an expression of concern when significant concerns exist and further investigation is ongoing or the available evidence remains inconclusive.
  • Retract a published article when the findings justify retraction under JELTL's retraction policy.
  • Notify the relevant institution, funder, publisher, or other appropriate body when warranted.
  • Restrict future submissions or take other proportionate editorial measures where justified by established misconduct and JELTL's policies.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the findings and intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. Retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern will be handled in accordance with JELTL's relevant policies.

7. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Authors must ensure that their research is accurately reported, original work is appropriately cited, data are represented honestly, and all required ethical and funding declarations are complete.

Reviewers should report credible concerns about plagiarism, data integrity, ethical compliance, or other potential misconduct to the editor and should not conduct unauthorized investigations or disclose confidential information.

Editors must assess allegations objectively, manage conflicts of interest, maintain appropriate confidentiality, and take reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the publication process.

8. Appeals and Further Information

Individuals who disagree with an editorial decision arising from an allegation may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office, supported by relevant evidence or clarification.

The appeal will be reviewed by an editor or an appropriately designated person who is not directly conflicted by the matter. JELTL may seek independent advice when necessary.

JELTL may refer unresolved concerns to the appropriate research institution or other competent body when a formal investigation is necessary.

9. Policy and Ethical Framework

JELTL handles allegations of research misconduct in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy may be applied alongside JELTL's policies on plagiarism, authorship and contributorship, corrections and retractions, conflicts of interest, and research ethics.