Research Misconduct Policy

Informasi is committed to research integrity. The journal takes every allegation of research misconduct seriously, whether it arises before or after publication, and handles it fairly, confidentially, and in line with the COPE Core Practices and flowcharts. This policy defines misconduct, explains how the journal prevents and detects it, and sets out how allegations are handled and what outcomes may follow.

Guiding principles. Allegations are judged on evidence, not on reputation. Authors are presumed to have acted in good faith and are always given the chance to respond. People who raise concerns in good faith are protected. The journal does not investigate misconduct itself: it assesses the evidence, contacts the authors, and refers serious cases to their institutions. Actions are proportionate and aim to correct the scholarly record.
1. Research Misconduct

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

Fabrication Making up data, participants, interviews, sources, or results and reporting them as genuine.
Falsification Manipulating data, procedures, images, or quotations, or selectively omitting results, so that the research is misrepresented. Examples include altering interview excerpts, survey responses, or screenshots of media content, or reporting only findings that fit the hypothesis.
Plagiarism Using another person’s ideas, words, data, or work without proper acknowledgement, including translation plagiarism. See the Plagiarism Policy.
2. Other Unacceptable Practices
Duplicate publication and simultaneous submission Publishing substantially the same work more than once without disclosure, or submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
Text recycling and salami slicing Reusing substantial parts of one’s own published text without citation, or splitting one study into several minimal articles without justification.
Authorship misconduct Gift, ghost, or purchased authorship, or changing the author list without the agreement of all authors. See the Authorship Policies.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest Failing to declare financial, institutional, political, or personal interests. See Conflicts of Interest.
Ethical violations with human participants Conducting research without the required ethical approval or informed consent; breaching the confidentiality or anonymity of informants, interviewees, or social media users; or exposing vulnerable participants to harm.
Citation and peer-review manipulation Excessive self-citation, citation stacking, or coercive citation; suggesting fake reviewers or otherwise compromising the review process.
Paper mills and brokers Buying, selling, or brokering manuscripts or authorship; submitting fabricated or mass-produced papers; or using text-spinning tools to disguise plagiarism.
Inappropriate use of generative AI Using AI to generate data, results, interview content, or references, or failing to disclose AI use. See the Generative AI Policy.
Misconduct by reviewers or editors Breaching the confidentiality of manuscripts, using unpublished information for personal advantage, uploading manuscripts to AI tools, failing to declare conflicts of interest, or making biased assessments.
3. Prevention and Detection
  • Author declarations. At submission, authors confirm that the manuscript is original and that all authors agree to its submission. From Vol. 56 No. 2 (December 2026), every article also includes an AI Usage Statement, an Author Contributions statement, a Declaration of Competing Interest, and a Funding statement.
  • Ethics approval and informed consent. From Vol. 56 No. 2 (December 2026), every article includes an Ethics Approval and Informed Consent statement. Research involving human participants, such as interviews, surveys, focus groups, observation, or identifiable social media data, names the ethics committee that approved it and the approval number, and confirms that informed consent was obtained. If approval was not required, the authors explain why. Articles without human participants state “Not applicable.”
  • Similarity checking. Every manuscript is checked with Turnitin. The maximum overall similarity is 20%, excluding references, as set out in the Plagiarism Policy. A low score does not rule out plagiarism, and a high score is not proof of it.
  • Editorial checks. Editors look for inconsistent or implausible data, altered images or screenshots, non-existent or irrelevant references, tortured phrases, signs of paper-mill activity, and overlap with the authors’ earlier publications.
  • Data on request. At any stage, editors may ask authors for raw data, anonymised interview transcripts, questionnaires, coding frames, or ethics approval documents.
  • Reviewers and editors keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts of interest, and report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief.
4. Reporting a Concern

Anyone, including readers, reviewers, co-authors, and institutions, may raise a concern by writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the Contact page, with the subject line “Research integrity concern – [manuscript ID or article DOI]”. Please include:

  • the manuscript ID, or the article title and DOI;
  • a clear description of the concern and specific evidence, such as overlapping passages with their sources, or data or image comparisons;
  • your name and contact details, and any conflict of interest you may have.

Anonymous reports are considered if they contain specific, verifiable evidence. The identity of the person raising the concern is not disclosed to the authors without consent. Allegations that are knowingly false or malicious are themselves treated as misconduct.

5. Handling Allegations
5.1 Before publication
Stage Description
1. Review paused The editor suspends peer review or production and informs the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Evidence gathered The editors document the evidence and judge whether the problem is minor (for example, limited overlap or missing citations) or serious (for example, substantial plagiarism, fabricated data, duplicate submission, or paper-mill indicators).
3. Authors contacted The editor describes the concern neutrally to the corresponding author, encloses the evidence, and asks for an explanation.
4. Decision If the explanation is satisfactory, review resumes. A minor problem is returned for revision. A serious problem, an unsatisfactory answer, or no answer leads to rejection, and the authors’ institution or other journals may be informed.
5.2 After publication
Stage Description
1. Preliminary assessment The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report and decides whether the allegation is specific and credible. If it is not, the case is closed and the person who raised it is informed.
2. Authors contacted The editor asks the authors for an explanation and supporting materials, such as raw data, transcripts, or ethics documents.
3. Referral to institutions If the explanation is unsatisfactory or the authors do not respond, the editor asks the authors’ institutions to investigate and cooperates with them. An Expression of Concern may be published while the case is open.
4. Decision and notice The editors decide to take no action, publish a correction, or retract the article, following the R-W-C Policy. Any notice is linked to the original article. The authors, the person who raised the concern, and any institution involved are informed of the outcome.
5.3 Allegations against reviewers or editors

Concerns about a reviewer or an editor are handled by the Editor-in-Chief. Concerns about the Editor-in-Chief are handled by a senior member of the Editorial Board or by the publisher, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. The person concerned takes no part in handling the case.

6. Outcomes and Sanctions

Actions depend on how serious the misconduct is, whether it was intentional, and whether it was repeated. One or more of the following may apply:

For manuscripts and articles

  • no action, if the allegation is not substantiated;
  • a letter of explanation to the authors;
  • revision before review continues;
  • rejection of the manuscript;
  • a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction.

For the people involved

  • a formal letter to the authors’ institutions or funders;
  • a ban on submissions for a period decided by the Editor-in-Chief, for serious or repeated misconduct;
  • removal of a reviewer or editor from the reviewer list or editorial team;
  • notification of other affected journals.
7. Fairness and Confidentiality
  • Information about a case is shared only with those who need to know it, and case records are kept confidentially.
  • Authors are not publicly identified as having committed misconduct unless it has been established and a public notice is needed to correct the record.
  • Authors may appeal a decision as described on the Ownership and Management page.

Sources

ALL European Academies. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (Revised ed.). https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC

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

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Retraction guidelines (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts

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

World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement