Research Misconduct Policy

Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan (JuMP) (p-ISSN 1978-1938; e-ISSN 2580-6491) is committed to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the scholarly record. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously, whether raised before or after publication.

This policy:

• defines research misconduct and other questionable research practices;
• explains how the journal prevents and detects them;
• sets out step-by-step procedures for handling allegations;
• describes the possible outcomes, sanctions, fairness, and record-keeping procedures.

Research misconduct refers to actions that compromise the integrity of the scholarly record. JuMP defines and categorizes research misconduct into the following practices:

• Fabrication: Making up data, research participants, survey responses, interview excerpts, or empirical findings and reporting them as authentic.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or altering, omitting, or cherry-picking data or figures so that the research is not accurately represented.
• Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, or work without proper acknowledgment. This includes:
  • Verbatim copying without quotation marks and attribution;
  • Paraphrasing substantial text without proper citation;
  • Translation plagiarism (translating another author's work, e.g., from Indonesian into English, without attribution);
  • Presenting others' unpublished work, data, or ideas as one's own.
• Ethical Violations in Human Participant Research: Conducting research without required ethical approval (IRB/Ethics Committee) or informed consent, breaching participant confidentiality, or exposing vulnerable participants (e.g., students, teachers, minors) to harm.
• Peer-Review Manipulation: Suggesting fake reviewer accounts, reviewing one's own manuscript, or attempting to compromise the independent peer-review process.
• Paper Mills and Fraudulent Manuscripts: Buying, selling, or brokering manuscripts or authorship; submitting mass-produced or fabricated papers; or using "tortured phrases" and automated text-spinners to disguise plagiarism.
• Inappropriate Use of Generative AI: Submitting AI-generated data or results, failing to disclose generative AI tools, listing AI as a co-author, or generating fake/hallucinated references.
• Misconduct by Reviewers or Editors: Breaching manuscript confidentiality, using unpublished information for personal advantage, uploading manuscripts to unauthorized AI tools, or failing to declare conflicts of interest.

• Author Declarations: At submission, authors must formally confirm that the manuscript is original, unpublished, not under review elsewhere, and compliant with ethical guidelines.
• Similarity Screening: All submitted manuscripts undergo similarity checking (via Turnitin / iThenticate) prior to peer review. Manuscripts with high text overlap or unoriginal phrasing are flagged for editorial review.
• Editorial Checks: Editors evaluate logical consistency, data integrity, reference validity, tortured phrases, paper-mill indicators, and text overlap with authors' previous publications.

Anyone (readers, reviewers, editors, or external parties) who suspects research misconduct in a submitted or published article is encouraged to report it to the journal.

• How to Report: Reports should be emailed to the Editor-in-Chief at jump@uny.ac.id with the subject header "Research Misconduct Allegation - [Article Title / ID]".
• What to Include: Reports must include the manuscript ID or article title/DOI, a clear description of the concern, specific supporting evidence (e.g., annotated text comparisons, similarity reports, or data discrepancies), and reporter contact details.
• Whistle-Blower Protection: The identity of the whistle-blower is kept strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to authors without explicit written consent.
• Bad-Faith Allegations: Allegations made maliciously or knowingly false will be treated as ethical breaches.

4.1 Suspected Misconduct in a Submitted Manuscript (Before Publication)

• Identification: A concern is raised by similarity checking, an editor, a reviewer, or a third party.
• Review Process Paused: The handling editor suspends peer review or production and informs the Editor-in-Chief.
• Evidence Gathering: Within 14 days, editors document evidence by comparing texts or data, checking references, and evaluating authors' previous works.
• Assessment of Seriousness: Editors distinguish minor problems (e.g., limited overlap or poor paraphrasing) from serious misconduct (e.g., substantial plagiarism, fabrication, duplicate submission, or paper-mill indicators).
• Contacting the Authors: The editor writes to the corresponding author, presenting evidence neutrally and requesting an explanation within 14–30 days. The whistle-blower is not identified.
• Evaluation of Response:
  • If the explanation is satisfactory, review resumes.
  • If a minor issue is found, the manuscript is returned for revision with clear instructions.
  • If serious misconduct is confirmed or authors fail to respond, the manuscript is rejected and sanctions are considered.
• Further Actions in Serious Cases: Editors may inform the authors' institution, ethics committee, or funder, and apply sanctions in Part 5.

4.2 Suspected Misconduct in a Published Article

• Receipt and Acknowledgement: The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report within 7 working days.
• Preliminary Assessment: Within 14 days, editors decide whether the allegation is credible, specific, and within the journal's remit.
• Evidence Gathering: Editors compile and verify evidence, seeking advice from independent experts if needed.
• Contacting the Authors: The editor asks the corresponding author for an explanation and supporting materials (raw data, transcripts, ethics documents) within 30 days.
• Evaluation of Response & Action:
  • If satisfactory, the case is closed.
  • If the problem is an honest error, a formal Correction is published.
  • If explanation is unsatisfactory or unprovided, the case is escalated to institutional inquiry, and an Expression of Concern or Retraction Notice may be issued.

Sanctions are applied proportionally based on the severity, intent, and repetition of misconduct:

• Confidentiality: Information about a case is shared only with those who need to know it. Authors and individuals under investigation are not publicly identified until a final decision or formal notice is enacted.
• Protection of Whistle-Blowers: The identity of the person raising a concern is kept strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to the authors or third parties without explicit consent.
• Fairness and Due Process: Authors or individuals accused of misconduct are given a full and fair opportunity to inspect the evidence, review allegations, and submit an explanation before a decision is finalized.
• Record Retention: Detailed records of allegations, correspondence, evidence, inquiry reports, and final decisions are archived securely in the journal's confidential files for a minimum of five (5) years.
• Appeals: Authors may appeal an editorial decision or sanction within 30 days of notification by submitting new evidence to the Editor-in-Chief at jump@uny.ac.id. Appeals are evaluated by an independent editor not involved in the original decision.