Allegations of Misconduct
1. Introduction
JDEP (Jurnal Dinamika Ekonomi Pembangunan) is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy describes how the journal receives, assesses, and addresses concerns about research and publication misconduct.
JDEP considers relevant principles, guidelines, and flowcharts developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Concerns are assessed fairly, impartially, and with appropriate confidentiality. This policy applies to submitted manuscripts, published articles, and the conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the publication process.
2. Scope of Misconduct
Research and publication misconduct may include:
- Fabrication: inventing data, observations, participants, or results and reporting them as genuine.
- Falsification: manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or analyses, including unjustified omissions, in ways that misrepresent the research.
- Plagiarism: presenting another person’s words, ideas, methods, or findings without appropriate acknowledgment.
- Redundant or concurrent publication: submitting substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously or publishing overlapping work without appropriate disclosure and justification.
- Authorship misconduct: including individuals who do not qualify as authors, excluding eligible contributors, or making unauthorised authorship changes.
- Citation manipulation: requesting or inserting irrelevant references to increase citation counts or misrepresent scholarly influence.
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to disclose relevant financial or non-financial relationships that could influence research, peer review, or editorial decisions.
- Breaches of research ethics: failing to obtain required prior ethical approval or consent, misrepresenting an exemption, or inadequately protecting participants and confidential information.
- Peer review manipulation: using fabricated reviewer identities, submitting fraudulent reviews, or improperly influencing the review process.
- Misuse of artificial intelligence: using AI contrary to the journal’s policy, fabricating evidence or references, or disclosing confidential submissions to unauthorised AI services.
- Misleading presentation of research materials: altering images, tables, graphs, or supporting documents in ways that distort the underlying evidence.
An honest error, disagreement over interpretation, or negative research finding does not, by itself, establish misconduct. Editorial assessment will consider the evidence and circumstances of each case.
3. Principles for Handling Allegations
Fair and Independent Assessment
JDEP assesses concerns on their merits without presuming that an allegation establishes wrongdoing. Individuals whose work or conduct is questioned will receive a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Anyone with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from handling the case. A person directly implicated in an allegation must not assess or decide that allegation.
Confidentiality
Information will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or resolve the concern, or where disclosure is necessary under applicable institutional or legal requirements. The journal will seek to protect the identity of individuals raising concerns but cannot guarantee absolute anonymity.
Evidence and Proportionality
Actions will reflect the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and its effect on the reliability of the research or publication process. Similarity scores and AI-detection results are screening aids and will not independently establish misconduct.
Timely Communication
The journal will seek to address concerns promptly while allowing sufficient time for careful assessment. Relevant parties will be informed of material developments and significant delays where appropriate.
4. Reporting an Allegation
Concerns should be submitted in writing through the official editorial contact listed on JDEP’s Contact page.
Reports should include, where available:
- The manuscript title and submission number, or the published article’s title and DOI.
- A clear explanation of the suspected problem.
- The relevant passages, data, figures, documents, or publications.
- Supporting evidence that allows the concern to be assessed.
- Contact details for follow-up questions.
Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. Concerns raised publicly, including through social media, may also be assessed.
Reports involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an independent editor or an appropriate representative of the publisher.
5. Initial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or an editor without a relevant conflict of interest will conduct an initial assessment to determine:
- Whether the concern falls within the journal’s responsibilities.
- Whether the information is sufficiently specific to investigate.
- Whether clarification or additional evidence is needed.
- Whether immediate measures are necessary to protect the review process or scholarly record.
The journal may pause manuscript processing while a concern is assessed. Reports that are unsupported, outside the journal’s remit, or insufficiently specific may be closed, with an explanation to the reporting party where practicable.
A decision to close a report may be reconsidered if substantial new evidence becomes available.
6. Assessment and Investigation Procedures
Request for an Explanation
Where a concern warrants further assessment, the journal will contact the relevant individuals, describe the issue, and request a written response within a reasonable period. The information provided must be sufficient to enable a meaningful response while respecting confidentiality.
Examination of Supporting Materials
The journal may request relevant materials, including original data, analytical code, research instruments, ethical approval documents, consent documentation, permissions, contribution records, or correspondence.
Requests will take account of participant privacy, confidentiality, and legitimate restrictions on data access. Authors should explain any restrictions and identify appropriate ways to verify the research.
Independent Advice
JDEP may seek advice from an independent editor, subject specialist, methodological expert, or publisher representative. Anyone consulted must disclose relevant conflicts and respect confidentiality.
Institutional Referral
The journal assesses the reliability of submissions and published content. Institutions and other responsible bodies are generally better placed to investigate research conduct, access institutional records, or resolve disputed contributions.
Where appropriate, JDEP may refer concerns to the relevant institution, ethics committee, funding organisation, or other responsible body and request an investigation. The journal may take editorial action to protect the scholarly record while an institutional investigation remains unresolved.
7. Possible Outcomes and Editorial Actions
Depending on the evidence, JDEP may take one or more of the following actions:
No Further Action
If the concern is not substantiated or has been adequately resolved, the case may be closed. Relevant parties will be informed where appropriate.
Clarification or Manuscript Revision
For submitted manuscripts, the journal may request clarification, additional documentation, correction of attribution, revised disclosures, or other necessary amendments. Revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Rejection
A manuscript may be rejected where serious ethical problems, unreliable findings, or manipulation of the publication process undermine its suitability for publication.
Correction
A correction may be issued when an error or omission affects a limited part of a published article and the overall findings remain reliable. Corrections may also address relevant disclosure or attribution problems.
Expression of Concern
An expression of concern may be published where substantial questions remain about an article’s reliability or ethical conduct and the available evidence is inconclusive, an investigation is delayed, or a satisfactory investigation cannot be obtained.
Retraction
An article may be retracted where the evidence establishes that its findings are unreliable or that serious ethical or publication problems warrant retraction. Retraction serves to correct the scholarly record.
Retraction notices will identify the affected article, explain the reasons for the action, and remain linked to the article. The original article will ordinarily remain accessible and clearly marked as retracted.
Notification to Responsible Bodies
Where warranted, the journal may communicate relevant findings to institutions, funders, or other responsible organisations.
Editorial action does not depend solely on whether misconduct has been formally established. Reliable evidence of serious errors may require correction or retraction even where the errors were unintentional.
8. Appeals
Individuals who wish to appeal an outcome should submit a written explanation through the journal’s official editorial contact. Appeals should identify a substantive factual error, procedural concern, or new evidence that could materially affect the decision.
Where practicable, an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest will assess the appeal. An appeal involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an independent editor or publisher representative.
An appeal does not automatically suspend an editorial notice or guarantee reversal of the decision.
9. Records and Communication
JDEP will retain appropriate confidential records of reports, correspondence, evidence, assessments, and outcomes.
Outcomes will be communicated to the relevant parties to the extent permitted by confidentiality and applicable requirements. Public notices will focus on information necessary to explain the status and reliability of the published record.
The journal will assess concerns raised in good faith without treating the act of reporting as evidence of improper conduct.
10. Prevention and Policy Review
JDEP seeks to prevent misconduct through clear author and reviewer guidance, double-blind peer review, editorial oversight, plagiarism screening, and assessment of compliance with its research ethics and AI policies.
This policy will be reviewed periodically. Material revisions and their effective dates will be displayed on the journal website.
Policy References
