01

Policy and definition

Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora takes every credible allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously, and handles it following COPE guidance, including its guideline on cooperation between universities and journals on research integrity.

Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.

—  Fabrication: inventing data, sources, or results and presenting them as genuine.

—  Falsification: manipulating materials or data, or leaving out results selectively, so that the research is misrepresented.

—  Plagiarism: verbatim copying, uncited paraphrase, translation plagiarism, and passing off others' unpublished work as one's own. See the Plagiarism Policy.

02

Other unacceptable practices

Duplicate publication and simultaneous submission · self-plagiarism and salami slicing · authorship misconduct · undisclosed conflicts of interest · ethical violations involving human participants · citation manipulation · peer-review manipulation · paper mills · inappropriate use of generative AI · misconduct by reviewers or editors.

03

Reporting a concern

—  Anyone may report: readers, reviewers, co-authors, institutions, and the public.

—  Email the Editor-in-Chief through the journal website, with the subject “Research integrity concern – [manuscript ID or article DOI]”.

—  Give the manuscript ID or the article title and DOI, a clear description, specific evidence, your contact details, and any conflict of interest of your own.

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

—  Please do not make an allegation public while it is being considered.

04

Procedure

Before publication

1.  The evidence is documented within 14 days.

2.  The authors are asked for an explanation within 14 to 30 days.

3.  A minor problem may lead to revision. A serious problem, an unsatisfactory answer, or no answer leads to rejection and possible further action.

After publication

1.  The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report within 7 working days.

2.  A preliminary assessment is made within 14 days.

3.  The authors are asked for an explanation within 30 days.

4.  The case is closed, corrected, or escalated. The editors decide on no action, correction, retraction, or, exceptionally, removal, under the R-W-C Policy.

Reviewers and editors

Allegations against a reviewer or an editor are handled by the Editor-in-Chief. Concerns about the Editor-in-Chief go to a senior board member or to the publisher, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

05

Rights of authors

—  Authors are presumed to have acted in good faith until the evidence shows otherwise.

—  Authors are always given the opportunity to respond.

—  Authors are not publicly identified as having committed misconduct unless it is established and a public notice is needed.

—  Authors may appeal within 30 days, with new evidence or arguments. The appeal is heard by an editor not involved in the case, and the decision is final.

06

Working with institutions

As COPE advises, the journal informs an institution when it suspects misconduct by one of its researchers, supplies the supporting evidence, cooperates with the investigation, and answers the institution promptly. The journal does not run misconduct investigations itself.

—  If the authors do not respond, the editor tries to reach them again and then contacts their institution.

—  The journal may ask an institution to investigate and to share the findings, and may refer serious cases to the institution, its research-integrity office, or the funder.

—  If an institutional investigation is long, inconclusive, or unanswered, the editors may publish an Expression of Concern to alert readers.

—  The journal publishes a correction or retraction based on the findings, following COPE's guidelines.

07

Outcomes

Action is proportionate to the seriousness, the intent, and whether it is repeated. It may include:

—  no action, or a letter of education;

—  a required revision, or rejection;

—  a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction of a published article;

—  a formal letter to the authors' institution, or to other journals;

—  removal of a reviewer or editor;

—  a ban on submissions, normally two to five years for serious or repeated misconduct.

08

Confidentiality and bad faith

—  The identity of the person reporting is not disclosed to the authors without their consent.

—  Case information is shared only with those who need to know, and confidential case records are kept for at least five years.

—  An allegation that is knowingly false or malicious is itself treated as misconduct.

09

Related

—  Publication Ethics

—  Correction and Retraction

—  Post Publication Discussion and Correction