Examples of practices that may compromise the reliability or integrity of scholarly work.

• Fabrication and falsification. Inventing, altering, or selectively misrepresenting research data, experimental measurements, analytical models, simulation outputs, methods, or findings.
• Plagiarism. Using another person's words, ideas, figures, data, or research findings without appropriate acknowledgment.
• Duplicate or redundant publication. Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping work without proper disclosure, permission, or scholarly justification.
• Authorship misconduct. Misrepresenting contributions through inappropriate authorship attribution, omission of qualifying contributors, or unauthorized changes to the author list.
• Peer-review manipulation. Undermining the independence or integrity of review through fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated reports, or inappropriate influence.
• Other serious ethical violations. Citation manipulation, materially undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information, or breaches of applicable research ethics requirements.

An honest error, a legitimate methodological disagreement, or a difference in scientific interpretation does not automatically constitute misconduct. Each concern is assessed in its specific context and on the available evidence.

A concern should be reported through the official editorial channel with sufficient detail for assessment.

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, and other concerned parties may report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief through the official JICE editorial contact.

A report should identify the manuscript or published article concerned (including its title and DOI or submission details, where available), describe the suspected issue, and provide relevant supporting evidence, references, or documentation when possible.

JICE considers concerns raised in good faith, including those reported by individuals outside the author group. Information concerning reporting individuals and other parties will be treated confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair assessment and applicable obligations.

Editors assess editorial implications and may refer formal research-conduct inquiries to institutions.

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts a preliminary assessment to determine the relevance and apparent credibility of the concern and whether further examination is warranted.

• Evidence review. The editor may examine manuscripts, published articles, similarity findings, relevant figures, underlying data, methodological records, editorial correspondence, and other appropriate material.
• Opportunity to respond. When sufficient grounds exist, the persons concerned may be asked to provide explanations, original data, supporting documents, or clarifications, and are given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a substantive decision.
• Institutional involvement. Where formal examination of research conduct is needed, JICE may refer the case to the relevant institution or competent authority. The institution investigates conduct within its remit; JICE remains responsible for editorial decisions affecting the manuscript or published record.
• Independent handling. An editor with an actual or potential conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision. The case should be assigned to an appropriate independent editor or publisher representative.

The handling of a concern should be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegation and based on available evidence, not assumptions or unsupported assertions.

Actions must be supported by evidence, proportionate, and appropriate to publication status.

Possible actions depend on the strength of the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and whether the work has already been published.

Where a public editorial notice is warranted, it will be clearly identified and linked to the original article where feasible. An allegation is not a finding of misconduct; the editorial response must be based on a fair evaluation of the evidence.

Due process includes a meaningful opportunity to respond and a documented appeal mechanism.

JICE seeks to protect the confidentiality, rights, and legitimate interests of reporting individuals and affected parties. Information will be shared only as reasonably necessary to assess or resolve the concern, subject to relevant legal or institutional requirements.

Authors or other affected individuals may submit a reasoned written appeal to the editorial office, explaining the basis for reconsideration and providing relevant evidence or documentation. Where practicable, an appeal will be reviewed by an editor or publisher representative who was not responsible for the original decision.

The journal maintains appropriate records of allegations, supporting materials, relevant communications, assessments, and editorial outcomes. Such records are handled with due regard for confidentiality and applicable data-protection obligations.

The aim is to resolve concerns responsibly while protecting the scholarly record.

JICE is committed to addressing concerns responsibly and impartially while safeguarding the reliability of its published research. Its editorial procedures are informed by the COPE Core Practices and by the journal's related publication ethics policies.

This policy applies to concerns raised before or after publication and will be reviewed periodically to maintain consistency with the journal's editorial procedures and developments in research integrity guidance.