Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

Policy Statement

Jurnal Puitika is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and transparency of the scholarly record. The journal takes all credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern manuscripts under consideration, articles already published, or the conduct of authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties involved in the publication process.

This policy establishes the procedures for reporting, assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of research and publication misconduct. It applies to all submissions and published content handled by Jurnal Puitika, including research articles, review articles, and other scholarly contributions within the journal's scope.

The journal follows the relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), as well as other applicable institutional and legal requirements.

The journal distinguishes between an allegation, an indication of possible misconduct, and a substantiated finding. An allegation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred. All cases will be handled fairly, impartially, confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, and in proportion to the nature and seriousness of the concerns raised.

Scope and Types of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct may occur before, during, or after publication. It may involve authors, co-authors, editors, reviewers, research collaborators, or other individuals participating in the research and publication process.

Allegations may concern, but are not limited to, the following:

Plagiarism and Inappropriate Attribution

Plagiarism includes the appropriation or presentation of another person's words, ideas, arguments, data, research findings, translations, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment. It may involve verbatim copying, inadequate paraphrasing, unattributed translation, or the use of another person's original analysis without proper attribution.

The journal will assess the nature, extent, context, and significance of the suspected appropriation rather than relying exclusively on a similarity score. Properly attributed quotations, references, and conventional expressions will be distinguished from potentially plagiarized material.

Data Fabrication, Falsification, and Misrepresentation

Data fabrication involves inventing data, observations, sources, or research findings and presenting them as genuine. Data falsification involves manipulating research materials, procedures, evidence, or data in ways that distort the research record.

In research in linguistics, literature, and cultural studies, such concerns may include fabricated interview transcripts, invented field observations, falsified archival records, altered corpus data, misrepresented participant responses, or the deliberate manipulation of textual evidence.

Fabricated, Inaccurate, or Misrepresented Sources

The journal takes seriously allegations involving nonexistent references, fabricated quotations, inaccurate source attribution, materially misleading citations, or the misrepresentation of primary and secondary sources.

Examples include attributing statements to sources that do not contain them, inventing bibliographic information, presenting a paraphrase as a direct quotation, or knowingly misrepresenting the findings of previous studies.

Citation errors or inaccurate references will be assessed in context to determine whether they represent inadvertent mistakes, serious negligence, or possible intentional misconduct.

Duplicate, Redundant, and Overlapping Publication

Misconduct may include submitting substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, republishing previously disseminated work without appropriate disclosure, or presenting substantially overlapping publications as independent original contributions.

The journal will consider the extent of the overlap, the relationship between the publications, the disclosure provided by the authors, and applicable standards concerning legitimate reuse, translations, and secondary publication.

Authorship and Contributorship Disputes

Concerns may involve unauthorized inclusion or exclusion of authors, fictitious authorship, undisclosed contributors whose contributions warrant authorship, inappropriate attribution of authorship, or disputes concerning the order of authors.

The journal will request clarification and supporting information from the parties concerned. Changes to authorship after submission or publication must follow the journal's applicable authorship policy and require appropriate documentation and agreement from the relevant parties.

The journal will not independently adjudicate employment, ownership, or other institutional disputes beyond its editorial responsibilities. Where necessary, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation may include coercive citation requests, the deliberate inclusion of irrelevant references to inflate citation counts, coordinated citation practices intended to distort scholarly metrics, or other inappropriate attempts to manipulate citation indicators.

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to add citations solely to increase the citation counts of themselves, their colleagues, or the journal. Requests for additional references must be justified by their genuine scholarly relevance.

Manipulation of Peer Review and Editorial Processes

Concerns may include fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviewer recommendations, impersonation, unauthorized interference with the review process, undisclosed conflicts of interest, breaches of reviewer confidentiality, or attempts to influence editorial decisions through improper means.

Reviewers must not appropriate unpublished ideas, arguments, data, or other intellectual contributions obtained through peer review. Editors and reviewers must also disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from cases in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Research Ethics and Inappropriate Use of Research Materials

Allegations may concern research conducted without required ethical approval, inadequate informed consent, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, violations of participant privacy, inappropriate handling of vulnerable participants, or the unauthorized use of restricted archival or research materials.

Where relevant, the journal may request ethical approval documentation, consent records, permission to reproduce copyrighted material, or other evidence necessary to assess compliance with applicable research ethics requirements.

Intellectual Property and Copyright Violations

The journal may investigate allegations of unauthorized reproduction, infringement of copyright or licensing conditions, inappropriate reuse of images or other protected materials, and misappropriation of unpublished scholarly work.

The journal will assess the allegation in accordance with the applicable intellectual property policy, publication agreements, licensing conditions, and relevant law.

Image, Audio, Video, and Other Evidence Manipulation

Potential misconduct may involve deceptive alteration, fabrication, selective manipulation, or misrepresentation of photographs, recordings, visual materials, interview excerpts, transcripts, or other evidence used to support scholarly claims.

Editorial assessment will consider whether the material has been altered in a manner that materially affects its authenticity, interpretation, or evidentiary value.

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest and Other Undeclared Practices

The journal may examine failures to disclose financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing research, peer review, or editorial decisions.

Other concerns may include undisclosed prior publication, undisclosed use of restricted materials, or failure to comply with relevant journal policies where such noncompliance materially affects the integrity of the scholarly record.

Inappropriate Use or Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence

Allegations concerning artificial intelligence (AI) will be assessed in accordance with the journal's applicable AI Usage Policy and other relevant publication ethics policies.

Potential concerns may include fabricated references or evidence generated by AI and presented as authentic, misrepresentation of the origin or verification of research materials, unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts or personal data to AI systems, failure to make required disclosures, or other uses that materially undermine research integrity.

The use of AI does not, by itself, constitute misconduct. The journal will consider the nature of the use, the applicable policy, the author's disclosure, the verification of the output, and the effect on the reliability and integrity of the scholarly work.

The categories above are illustrative rather than exhaustive. The journal may assess other conduct that raises a credible concern about research integrity, publication ethics, or the reliability of the scholarly record.

Reporting Allegations

Any individual or organization with a reasonable basis to suspect research or publication misconduct may submit a report to the editorial office of Jurnal Puitika.

Reports may be submitted by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, research collaborators, institutions, publishers, or other concerned parties. Reports may relate to submitted manuscripts, articles under review, published articles, or the conduct of individuals involved in the journal's editorial processes.

Reports should be submitted to:

Editorial Office: Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Andalas, Kampus Limaumanih, Jalan Dr. H. Mohammad Hatta, Padang, Sumatra Barat, Indonesia.

Institution: Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Andalas

Email: puitika@hum.unand.ac.id

Where possible, reports should include the information requested in the following template:

The title, DOI, URL, manuscript identification number, or other information identifying the work concerned.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Relevant documentary evidence, such as source comparisons, bibliographic records, published materials, research documentation, or correspondence.
An explanation of how the evidence supports the concern, including relevant page numbers, passages, or dates.
The reporting party's contact information, if they wish to provide it.

Reports should be made in good faith and, where possible, supported by verifiable information. The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit an initial assessment. The inability to identify a reporting party will not automatically invalidate a report.

The journal will not disregard a report solely because it is submitted by a person who has a professional disagreement with an author or whose identity is not disclosed. However, the existence of a disagreement does not establish misconduct, and the journal will assess the available evidence impartially.

Knowingly submitting materially false allegations may itself raise ethical concerns. Nevertheless, an allegation that cannot be substantiated will not automatically be treated as a malicious or dishonest report.

Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the editor or designated editorial representative will acknowledge receipt where contact information is available and conduct a preliminary assessment.

The initial assessment will determine whether:

The allegation falls within the journal's editorial and publication ethics responsibilities.
The concern is sufficiently specific to permit meaningful examination.
The available information provides a reasonable basis for further inquiry.
Additional evidence, clarification, or specialist advice is required.
The matter should be referred to another responsible party, including a research institution, publisher, or relevant authority.

The editor may consult appropriate experts, use recognized research-integrity tools, compare source materials, examine publication records, or request clarification from the parties concerned.

Similarity-detection reports, automated tools, AI-detection indicators, and other technical outputs will not be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct. They may inform an assessment but must be interpreted in context and, where appropriate, supported by human evaluation and documentary evidence.

If the allegation is clearly outside the journal's remit or lacks sufficient information to justify further inquiry, the journal may close the matter or request additional information. Where appropriate and feasible, the reporting party will be informed of the decision without disclosing confidential information about other individuals.

The journal will not reject a manuscript or disregard a credible allegation merely to avoid addressing a potential integrity concern. Editorial decisions concerning the manuscript and the handling of the allegation will be considered in accordance with the circumstances of the case.

Investigation and Right of Response

Where a preliminary assessment identifies a credible concern, the journal will take reasonable steps to examine the matter further.

The procedure may include:

Reviewing the relevant manuscript, published article, supporting files, source materials, correspondence, and other available evidence.
Requesting a written explanation and relevant documentation from the author, reviewer, editor, or other individual concerned.
Providing the individual concerned with a fair opportunity to respond to the substance of the allegation.
Seeking independent expert advice where specialized knowledge is required.
Contacting the relevant research institution, employer, publisher, or other appropriate authority where a formal investigation is necessary or the journal cannot adequately resolve the matter through editorial review.
Reviewing the available findings and determining whether an editorial action is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to ensure that communications are clear, fair, and proportionate. The nature and extent of the inquiry will depend on the seriousness and complexity of the allegation, the available evidence, and the journal's responsibilities.

The journal does not replace the formal investigative functions of research institutions or other competent authorities. Where a matter requires access to institutional records, examination of research conduct beyond the journal's remit, or formal disciplinary procedures, the journal may request an investigation by the relevant institution.

The journal may continue its editorial assessment while an institutional investigation is pending if necessary to protect the integrity of the publication process or the scholarly record. Any interim action will be proportionate to the evidence and circumstances.

Confidentiality, Impartiality, and Protection Against Retaliation

Allegations will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair inquiry, applicable law, institutional procedures, and the need to communicate with relevant parties.

Information will be shared only with individuals who reasonably need it to assess, investigate, or resolve the matter. The journal will take reasonable precautions to protect confidential manuscripts, unpublished research, personal information, and the identity of reporting parties where appropriate.

The journal will not promise absolute anonymity or confidentiality where disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation or required by applicable obligations. Anonymous reports may limit the journal's ability to seek clarification or communicate the outcome.

Any editor, reviewer, or editorial representative with an actual or reasonably perceived conflict of interest must disclose the conflict and withdraw from handling the case where appropriate. The journal will designate an independent editor or other appropriate representative to manage the matter.

Good-faith reporting of suspected misconduct must not result in retaliation through editorial decisions or other improper treatment. The journal will assess reports on their merits, regardless of the reporting party's institutional affiliation, nationality, professional status, or relationship with the journal.

Communication with Authors, Institutions, and Other Journals

The journal may contact the relevant research institution or employer when the allegation requires formal investigation, when the evidence cannot be adequately assessed by the journal alone, or when institutional findings are necessary to determine an appropriate editorial response.

Communications with institutions should identify the concern clearly, provide relevant supporting information where appropriate, and distinguish verified facts from unresolved allegations.

The journal may cooperate with other journals or publishers where an allegation concerns overlapping publications, shared research materials, or related editorial processes. Such communication will be limited to information reasonably necessary to resolve the matter and will respect confidentiality and applicable legal requirements.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to follow up on relevant institutional inquiries and findings. If an institution does not respond or fails to provide a sufficient resolution, the journal may pursue further clarification or take editorial action based on the evidence available to it.

An institutional finding of misconduct may inform the journal's decision but does not eliminate the journal's responsibility to determine the appropriate action concerning its own publication record. Conversely, the journal will not claim that an individual has been formally found guilty of misconduct by an institution unless that finding has been established and may appropriately be communicated.

Possible Outcomes and Editorial Actions

The outcome will depend on the nature, seriousness, scope, and evidentiary basis of the concern, as well as its implications for the reliability of the manuscript or published article.

Possible actions include, but are not limited to:

No Further Action

If the available evidence does not substantiate the allegation or does not justify further action, the journal may close the case. Where appropriate, the relevant parties will be informed of the closure.

Request for Clarification or Correction

Where the concern arises from an error, omission, inaccurate reference, or other correctable issue that does not invalidate the central findings or arguments, the journal may request clarification or issue a correction in accordance with its correction policy.

A correction will not be used as a substitute for retraction when the reliability or integrity of the article is fundamentally compromised.

Rejection of a Submitted Manuscript

A manuscript may be rejected if the evidence establishes serious ethical noncompliance, if the authors fail to provide an adequate explanation for a material concern, or if the manuscript otherwise fails to meet the journal's ethical and publication requirements.

The decision will be based on the available evidence and the applicable editorial policies. Rejection of a manuscript does not, by itself, establish that an author has committed misconduct.

Suspension or Termination of Editorial Processing

Where a credible concern arises during peer review or editorial processing, the journal may temporarily suspend the process while requesting clarification or awaiting relevant information.

The journal will determine whether processing may resume, whether additional safeguards are required, or whether the submission should be declined.

Expression of Concern

The journal may publish an expression of concern when a serious allegation raises substantial questions about the reliability or integrity of a published article, but the available evidence or the outcome of an investigation remains inconclusive.

An expression of concern may also be appropriate when an investigation is unreasonably delayed, and readers need to be alerted to a potentially significant issue.

Such a notice must clearly identify the article concerned, explain the nature of the unresolved concern to the extent permissible, and avoid presenting an unproven allegation as an established finding. The notice may be updated when further reliable information becomes available.

Retraction

The journal may retract a published article when the available evidence establishes that the article's findings, arguments, data, or other substantive content are unreliable or that serious ethical or publication misconduct has materially compromised the integrity of the scholarly record.

A retraction may be considered in cases involving, among other matters, substantial plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, serious ethical violations, unreliable findings, redundant publication that materially misrepresents the scholarly record, or other circumstances consistent with recognized retraction guidance.

A retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record, not to punish authors. The retraction notice will clearly identify the article, state the reason for retraction, and distinguish the established basis for the decision from matters that remain unresolved.

The journal will follow its applicable correction and retraction policy and relevant COPE guidance concerning the timing, wording, and publication of notices. The original article and its retraction notice will remain linked in a transparent manner, subject to applicable legal and technical requirements.

Referral or Other Appropriate Action

The journal may refer a matter to the relevant institution, publisher, or competent authority, or take other proportionate action permitted by its policies and applicable requirements.

Any action affecting an editor, reviewer, or other participant in the publication process will be handled according to the nature of the concern, the available evidence, and the journal's authority over that person's role.

These outcomes are not automatic or necessarily sequential. The journal will select the action appropriate to the particular circumstances and will document the reasons for its decision.

Decision-Making and Record Keeping

Editorial decisions concerning allegations will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent editor who is not affected by a conflict of interest. Where necessary, the editor may consult the editorial board, qualified external experts, the publisher, or the relevant institution.

The journal will maintain a confidential record of the allegation, supporting evidence, communications, responses, consultations, decisions, and actions taken, in accordance with its document-retention procedures and applicable data-protection requirements.

Records will be retained for 10 (ten) years or for another period required by applicable institutional rules, contractual obligations, or law.

The journal will ensure that decisions are based on the evidence available, the seriousness of the concern, the applicable publication ethics policies, and the need to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. Decisions will not be influenced by an author's institutional status, nationality, personal relationships, potential citation impact, or other irrelevant considerations.

Where appropriate, the journal will communicate the outcome to the reporting party and the individuals concerned, subject to confidentiality requirements. The journal may decline to disclose confidential investigative details or personal information that it is not authorized to share.

Complaints, Appeals, and Reconsideration

An individual directly affected by a decision made under this policy may request reconsideration by submitting a reasoned written appeal to an independent editor appointed by the management of Jurnal Puitika.

An appeal should identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide any relevant new evidence or material information not previously considered.

Appeals will be assessed by an editor or appropriate representative who was not materially involved in the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest, where practicable.

The journal may reconsider a decision if there is significant new evidence, a material procedural error, or another compelling reason to review the outcome. Disagreement with an unfavorable decision, without a substantive basis for reconsideration, will not necessarily justify reopening a case.

The appeal procedure does not prevent the journal from taking urgent and proportionate action when necessary to protect the scholarly record.

Review and Implementation of This Policy

This policy will be implemented by the editorial team of Jurnal Puitika and reviewed periodically to ensure its continued alignment with recognized publication ethics standards, relevant COPE guidance, the journal's other editorial policies, and applicable institutional requirements.

The journal will use relevant COPE resources, including its guidance on allegations of misconduct, flowcharts for editors, cooperation between research institutions and journals, and correction and retraction procedures, to inform the handling of individual cases.

Questions, reports, and requests concerning this policy may be directed to:

Editor-in-Chief: Sudarmoko, S.S., M.A., Ph.D.

Editorial Office: Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Andalas, Kampus Limaumanih, Jalan Dr. H. Mohammad Hatta, Padang, Sumatra Barat, Indonesia.

Institution: Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Andalas

Email: puitika@hum.unand.ac.id

Website: jurnalpuitika.fib.unand.ac.id

Last updated: 19 May 2026