Research Misconduct

This policy defines research and publication misconduct and explains how Efisiensi prevents, detects, and handles it. It follows the COPE Core Practices and flowcharts. Every allegation is handled confidentially and fairly, and the people involved have the chance to respond before any decision.

1. Definitions

1.1 Research misconduct

  • Fabrication: making up data, survey responses, interviews, or results.
  • Falsification: manipulating data, instruments, processes, or images, or omitting data so that the results are not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism: using others' work, ideas, or words without credit (Plagiarism Policy).

1.2 Other unacceptable practices

  • Duplicate or redundant publication, and salami slicing of one study into several articles.
  • Authorship misconduct: gift, ghost, or purchased authorship (Authorship Policy).
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation or citations demanded by reviewers or editors.
  • Peer review manipulation, such as fake reviewer identities or reviewing one's own work.
  • Use of paper mills or purchased manuscripts.
  • Research with people without consent or required ethics approval.
  • Undisclosed or prohibited use of generative AI (Generative AI Policy).
  • Falsifying submission, acceptance, or publication dates.

2. Prevention and Detection

  • Turnitin checks for every manuscript, with the report stored in OJS.
  • Required statements on authorship, funding, conflicts of interest, ethics, and AI use.
  • Verification of reviewer identities through institutional emails and public profiles.
  • Article dates in the PDF taken from the OJS record.
  • Training and guidance for editors and reviewers.

3. Reporting an Allegation

Anyone may report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief at efisiensi@uny.ac.id. The report should identify the manuscript or article and describe the concern with evidence. Allegations against the Editor-in-Chief are sent to the publisher, the Head of the Department of Administration Education, Faculty of Economics and Business, UNY.

4. Procedures

4.1 In a submitted manuscript

  1. The editor reviews the evidence and pauses the review if needed.
  2. The authors are asked to explain within 14 days.
  3. If the explanation is satisfactory, the process continues. If not, the manuscript is rejected and, in serious cases, the institution is informed.

4.2 In a published article

  1. The editor gathers evidence and asks the authors to respond within 30 days.
  2. The editor may consult reviewers, the editorial board, or the institution, which may carry out its own investigation.
  3. Depending on the outcome, the journal publishes an expression of concern, a correction, or a retraction (Correction and Retraction).

4.3 Allegations against reviewers or editors

The Editor-in-Chief, or the publisher if the Editor-in-Chief is involved, examines the case. Proven misconduct leads to removal from the reviewer database or editorial team, and affected decisions are reviewed.

5. Outcomes and Sanctions

OutcomePossible action
Honest errorCorrection; no sanction.
Minor misconductRejection or correction; education of the authors.
Serious misconductRejection or retraction; a ban on submissions by the responsible authors for up to three years; notification of their institutions.

Sanctions apply only to the people responsible, never to other authors from the same institution.

6. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Records

  • Allegations are kept confidential and shared only with those who need to know.
  • Everyone involved has the chance to respond before a decision.
  • People who report concerns in good faith are protected.
  • Records of each case are kept for at least five years.

Sources