Allegation of Research Misconduct

1. Statement

Jurnal Inovasi Teknologi Pendidikan (JITP) takes every credible allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether it concerns a manuscript under review, a published article, or the conduct of an author, reviewer, or editor. We handle allegations fairly and confidentially, following the guidance and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy should be read together with our Publication Ethics, Authorship, Plagiarism, Conflict of Interest, and Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction policies.

An allegation is a concern to be assessed. It is not a finding. Honest errors and differences of interpretation are not misconduct, although they may still call for a correction.

2. What may be treated as misconduct

  • fabrication or falsification of data, results, respondents, or sources;
  • plagiarism, including self-plagiarism without disclosure;
  • manipulation of images, tables, or analyses so that the findings are misrepresented;
  • duplicate or redundant publication, and simultaneous submission to more than one journal;
  • citation manipulation, and fabricated or non-existent references, including those produced by AI tools;
  • false or inappropriate authorship;
  • research involving people without the required ethical approval or informed consent;
  • manipulation of peer review, or misuse of confidential information;
  • failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

3. Raising a concern

Anyone, including a reader, reviewer, author, editor, institution, or another journal, can report a concern by emailing the editorial office at teknodik@uny.ac.id with the subject line “Research misconduct concern”. The report should identify the manuscript or article (title, submission ID, or DOI), describe the concern specifically, and include supporting evidence, such as text comparisons, similarity reports, or data discrepancies. Anonymous reports may be considered if they contain specific information that can be checked. Reports should be made in good faith.

4. Initial assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, or another editor assigned by the Editor-in-Chief, checks whether the report is specific, supported by evidence, and consistent with the definition of misconduct. This step also considers whether the person reporting has any conflict of interest. If the concern involves the Editor-in-Chief or another editor, an independent editor or senior editorial board member handles it instead.

5. Inquiry

If the concern appears credible, the journal:

  • informs the corresponding author, who is asked to respond on behalf of all co-authors;
  • may ask for the data, source materials, or documents behind the work;
  • may consult independent experts, such as methodology or statistics specialists, or editorial board members;
  • may use similarity checking or image-analysis tools.

Automated results and expert opinions inform the decision but do not decide it by themselves. The journal weighs all the evidence and gives the people involved a reasonable opportunity to respond. If misconduct appears unlikely and the problem is a minor or honest error, the matter may be resolved through a clarification, additional analysis, a letter to the editor, or a correction notice.

6. Role of institutions

The journal may refer concerns to the authors’ institution, employer, or funder and ask that body to investigate and report back. The journal is responsible for editorial decisions and for protecting the scholarly record. It does not replace an institution’s formal investigation and does not decide on employment or disciplinary measures.

7. While a concern is being assessed

If the concern arises before publication, the journal may pause the editorial process. If a serious concern arises after publication, the journal may publish an expression of concern linked to the article while it is investigated. The notice is precautionary and does not mean that misconduct has occurred.

8. Outcomes

Depending on the evidence and seriousness, the journal may:

  • take no further action if the concern is not substantiated;
  • ask for clarification, revision, or correction;
  • reject or withdraw a manuscript from consideration;
  • publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction for a published article, following our Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction Policy;
  • inform the authors’ institution, funder, or other journals involved;

Where misconduct involves a reviewer or an editor, the journal sets aside the affected review or decision and takes appropriate action, which may include removal from reviewing or editorial duties.

9. Confidentiality and records

The journal shares information only with people who need it to assess the concern, and protects the identity of those who raise concerns as far as it reasonably can, recognising that a fair inquiry may limit confidentiality. The outcome is communicated to the relevant parties. Public notices state what is needed to explain any action affecting an article. The editorial office keeps a confidential record of each case.

10. Reconsideration

An author or party directly involved may ask the Editor-in-Chief to reconsider a decision by providing new evidence or pointing to a material procedural problem. The request should be sent to the editorial office within 30 days of the decision. Reconsideration does not guarantee a different outcome.