01

Scope and principles

Jurnal Civics aims for a high standard of research integrity. It handles allegations of misconduct before and after publication following COPE guidance. This policy covers definitions of misconduct and other questionable practices, prevention and detection, how allegations are handled, and the possible outcomes and sanctions.

Guiding principles. (1) Allegations are judged on evidence, not on reputation or assumption. (2) Authors are presumed to act in good faith and always have the chance to respond. (3) Whistle-blowers acting in good faith are protected and kept confidential. (4) The journal does not investigate misconduct itself: it assesses the evidence, contacts the authors, and refers cases to the responsible institutions. (5) Actions are proportionate and aim to correct the scholarly record.

02

Definitions

Research misconduct

Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. It does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.

—  Fabrication: inventing data, participants, interviews, sources, or results.

—  Falsification: manipulating materials, data, images, or quotations, or selectively omitting results.

—  Plagiarism: using others’ ideas, words, data, or work without acknowledgement, including verbatim copying, paraphrasing without citation, translation plagiarism, and presenting others’ unpublished work as one’s own.

Other unacceptable practices

—  Duplicate (redundant) publication, and simultaneous submission to more than one journal.

—  Self-plagiarism and text recycling beyond brief descriptions of methods, and salami slicing.

—  Authorship misconduct: gift or ghost authorship, and unagreed changes to authorship.

—  Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

—  Ethical violations in research with human participants: no approval or consent, breach of confidentiality, or harm to vulnerable groups such as minors, students, minorities, and migrants.

—  Citation manipulation: excessive self-citation, citation stacking, and coercive citation.

—  Peer-review manipulation: fake reviewers, or reviewing one’s own work.

—  Paper mills and fraudulent manuscripts: buying or selling manuscripts or authorship, mass-produced papers, and “tortured phrases”.

—  Inappropriate use of generative AI: undisclosed use, AI listed as an author, AI-generated data, results, interviews, or references, and fabricated citations.

—  Reviewer or editor misconduct: breaching confidentiality, using unpublished information, uploading manuscripts to AI tools without permission, undeclared conflicts, and biased or unfounded assessments.

03

Prevention and detection

—  Author declarations at submission cover originality, agreement of all authors, conflicts and funding, ethics approval and consent, and use of AI. Contributions are stated with CRediT roles. See the Author Declaration Form.

—  Similarity check before review and again before publication, with similarity-detection software. The limits are 20% overall similarity (excluding references) and no single match above 1%. A manuscript over the limits is examined by an editor under the Plagiarism Policy. A low score does not rule out plagiarism, and a high score is not proof of it.

—  Editorial checks for image or data anomalies, implausible data, non-existent or irrelevant references, tortured phrases, signs of a paper mill, and overlap with the authors’ earlier work.

—  Identity checks: institutional email addresses and ORCID iDs are verified, and reviewers suggested by authors are checked independently.

—  Data on request: editors may ask for raw data, anonymised transcripts, questionnaires, coding frames, or ethics documents at any stage.

—  Reviewers and editors keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts, and report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief.

04

Reporting an allegation

—  Who: anyone, including readers, reviewers, editors, co-authors, institutions, and the public.

—  How: email the Editor-in-Chief through the journal website with the subject line “Research integrity concern – [manuscript ID or article DOI]”. Give the manuscript ID or article title and DOI, a clear description, specific evidence, your contact details, and any conflict of interest.

—  Anonymous reports are considered only if they contain specific, verifiable evidence.

—  Confidentiality: the identity of the whistle-blower is not shared with the authors without consent. Allegations should not be made public while the matter is under review.

—  Bad-faith allegations are themselves treated as misconduct.

05

Procedures

Suspected misconduct before publication

1.  Identification. Raised by the similarity check, an editor, a reviewer, or a third party.

2.  Pause. The handling editor suspends review or production and informs the Editor-in-Chief.

3.  Evidence. Within 14 days the editors document the evidence and may consult a board member or an independent expert.

4.  Seriousness. Minor: limited overlap, missing citations, poor paraphrasing. Serious: substantial plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate submission, signs of a paper mill.

5.  Contact with the authors. The corresponding author receives a neutral description and the evidence, and has 14–30 days to explain. The whistle-blower is not named.

6.  Evaluation. If the explanation is satisfactory, review resumes. For a minor problem, the author is asked to revise with instructions. For a serious problem, an unsatisfactory explanation, or no response, the manuscript is rejected and step 7 follows.

7.  Further action (serious cases). Inform institutions, integrity offices, or funders; alert other journals in the case of duplicate submission; apply the sanctions in section 06.

8.  Record. The case is documented confidentially and the reporter is told it has been dealt with.

Suspected misconduct in a published article

1.  Acknowledgement. The Editor-in-Chief replies within 7 working days.

2.  Preliminary assessment. Within 14 days, decide whether the allegation is credible, specific, and within the journal’s remit. If not, the case is closed and the reporter informed.

3.  Evidence. The evidence is compiled and checked, with advice from experts or the board where needed.

4.  Contact with the authors. They are asked for an explanation and materials (raw data, transcripts, ethics documents) within 30 days.

5.  Evaluation. A satisfactory explanation closes the case. An honest error leads to a correction (see Correction, Retraction & Withdrawal). An unsatisfactory explanation or no response leads to step 6.

6.  Institutional referral. The authors’ institutions are asked to investigate. After repeated failed attempts to reach the authors, the journal contacts the institutions directly and cooperates fully.

7.  Expression of concern. May be published if the investigation is long, inconclusive, or unanswered by the institution.

8.  Decision. No action, correction, retraction, or, exceptionally, removal. COPE advice may be sought in complex cases.

9.  Notice. Published with its own DOI, linked to the article, and shared with Crossref and the indexing databases.

10.  Closure. The authors, the whistle-blower, and any institutions are informed. The case file stays confidential.

Allegations against reviewers or editors

—  Reviewers: handled by the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewer is asked to explain. If misconduct is confirmed, the reviewer is removed from the reviewer database, the review is disregarded, and the institution is informed where relevant.

—  Editors: handled by the Editor-in-Chief.

—  Editor-in-Chief: handled by a senior board member or by the publisher, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. The person concerned takes no part.

—  Manuscripts by an editor: handled by another editor, and the author-editor has no access to the review process.

06

Outcomes and sanctions

Sanctions are proportionate to severity, intent, and repetition. Possible outcomes:

1.  No action, if the allegation is unsubstantiated.

2.  A letter of explanation and education.

3.  Revision required before review continues.

4.  Rejection.

5.  Correction (erratum or corrigendum).

6.  Expression of concern.

7.  Retraction, with the reason stated.

8.  A formal letter to the institutions, integrity offices, or funders.

9.  A ban on submissions for two to five years, for serious or repeated misconduct.

10.  Removal of a reviewer or editor from the database or board.

11.  Notification of other journals or publishers.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions follow Correction, Retraction & Withdrawal.

07

Fairness, confidentiality, and records

—  Information about a case is shared only on a need-to-know basis.

—  Authors are not named publicly unless misconduct is established and a public notice is needed.

—  Appeals. Send to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, with new evidence or arguments. An uninvolved editor reviews the appeal, and that decision is final.

—  Confidential case records are kept for at least five years.

08

Related

Publication Ethics  ·  Peer Review Process  ·  Author Guidelines  ·  Post-Publication Discussion  ·  Correction, Retraction & Withdrawal  ·  Plagiarism Policy  ·  Conflict of Interest

09

Sources

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2025). Retraction guidelines (Version 3). https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). Authorship and AI tools: COPE position statement. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools

Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts [Guidance on suspected plagiarism, fabricated data, redundant publication, authorship changes, and ethical concerns]. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts

Committee on Publication Ethics & STM. (2022). Paper mills: Research report from COPE & STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL