SOCIA: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, published by Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, academic honesty, and publication ethics. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles them fairly, confidentially, consistently, and in accordance with established publication ethics principles and the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy establishes the definitions, prevention measures, reporting procedures, investigation timelines, editorial decisions, and possible sanctions applicable to suspected research misconduct involving authors, reviewers, and editors.

1. Principles of Research Integrity

SOCIA applies the following principles when handling suspected research misconduct:

• Fairness and impartiality: Allegations are assessed on the basis of evidence rather than personal relationships, reputation, or assumptions.
• Presumption of good faith: Individuals concerned are given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a decision is made.
• Confidentiality: Information about allegations and investigations is shared only with authorised individuals who need it to assess or resolve the case.
• Protection of good-faith reporters: Individuals who raise concerns in good faith are treated fairly, and their identities are protected to the extent possible.
• Proportionality: Any action taken is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct and the evidence available.
• Protection of the scholarly record: Editorial decisions aim to preserve the accuracy, transparency, and reliability of published research.

2. Forms of Research Misconduct

2.1. Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism

• Fabrication: Inventing data, participants, interviews, sources, or research findings and presenting them as genuine.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, images, or analytical results in ways that misrepresent the research.
• Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, or work without appropriate acknowledgement. This includes direct copying, inadequate paraphrasing, translation plagiarism, and presenting another person's work as one's own.

2.2. Other Unacceptable Publication Practices

SOCIA also considers the following practices unacceptable when they violate research integrity or publication ethics:

• Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping work in more than one outlet without appropriate disclosure.
• Simultaneous submission: Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time.
• Self-plagiarism and text recycling: Reusing substantial portions of previously published work without appropriate acknowledgement or disclosure.
• Authorship misconduct: Including individuals who have not made a qualifying contribution, excluding legitimate contributors, or changing authorship without appropriate agreement.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose interests that could influence the research or its interpretation.
• Research ethics violations: Failing to obtain required ethical approval or informed consent, breaching confidentiality, or exposing research participants to avoidable harm.
• Citation manipulation: Excessive or coercive citation practices intended primarily to inflate citation metrics.
• Peer-review manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, compromising the peer-review process, or improperly influencing editorial decisions.
• Paper mills and fraudulent manuscripts: Buying or selling manuscripts or authorship, fabricating research, or disguising copied material.
• Inappropriate use of generative AI: Fabricating data or references using AI, misrepresenting AI-generated content as verified research, listing AI tools as authors, or failing to disclose AI use when required by journal policy.
• Misconduct by reviewers or editors: Breaching confidentiality, exploiting unpublished information, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, or engaging in improper editorial conduct.

Honest errors, reasonable differences in interpretation, and good-faith disagreements do not, by themselves, constitute research misconduct.

3. Prevention and Detection

3.1. Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are original, accurate, ethically conducted, and compliant with the journal's submission requirements. Authors must disclose relevant funding, conflicts of interest, authorship contributions, research ethics approval where applicable, and generative AI use in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

3.2. Similarity Screening

A similarity score above 20% may result in a request for revision, further examination, or rejection, depending on the nature and extent of the overlap. A score at or below 20% does not automatically establish originality or exclude plagiarism. The final decision rests with the editor based on the evidence and scholarly context.

3.3. Editorial Screening

Editors may examine manuscripts for:

• Inconsistencies or implausible research data.
• Potentially manipulated images, tables, quotations, or findings.
• Missing, inaccurate, or unverifiable references.
• Substantial overlap with previously published work.
• Indicators of fraudulent authorship, paper-mill activity, or peer-review manipulation.
• Inconsistencies between the reported methods, evidence, and conclusions.

3.4. Supporting Evidence

When necessary, SOCIA may request research data, anonymised interview transcripts, questionnaires, analytical procedures, source documents, ethics approval, or informed consent documentation. Such requests must respect confidentiality, applicable data-protection requirements, and the legitimate interests of research participants.

4. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

4.1. Who May Submit a Report?

Concerns may be raised by authors, co-authors, readers, reviewers, editors, research institutions, or other individuals with relevant information.

4.2. Reporting Procedure

Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through SOCIA's official journal contact channel. A report should include, where available:

• The manuscript identification number, article title, or DOI.
• A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
• Supporting evidence, such as source comparisons, similarity reports, data discrepancies, or relevant documents.
• The reporter's contact information and any relevant conflict of interest.

Anonymous reports may be considered if they provide specific and verifiable evidence. The journal handles reports confidentially to the extent possible and does not disclose a reporter's identity unnecessarily.

4.3. Good-Faith Reporting

Individuals are encouraged to raise genuine concerns about research integrity. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves constitute misconduct. All allegations must be assessed fairly, and no individual will be treated as having committed misconduct solely because an allegation has been made.

5. Investigation Procedures and Timelines

5.1. Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial assessment within 14 working days of receiving a report or identifying credible indications of possible misconduct. The assessment determines whether the concern is sufficiently specific, credible, and relevant to warrant further examination.

5.2. Author Response

Where appropriate, the corresponding author and other relevant parties are informed of the concern and given 14 calendar days to provide a written explanation and supporting evidence. Additional time may be granted when justified by the complexity of the case or other reasonable circumstances.

5.3. Evidence Assessment

The editor examines the available evidence and may consult independent experts, members of the editorial board, or relevant research integrity specialists. Individuals with conflicts of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process.

5.4. Editorial Decision

SOCIA aims to reach an editorial decision within 30 working days after the relevant evidence and author clarification have been received. This is a target rather than an absolute deadline. Complex cases, institutional investigations, or delays in obtaining essential evidence may require additional time. The relevant parties will be informed when a substantial delay occurs.

5.5. Referral to Institutions

Serious or unresolved allegations may be referred to the relevant author's institution, research integrity office, funding body, or another appropriate authority. The journal's investigation focuses on publication ethics and the integrity of the scholarly record; it does not replace a formal institutional investigation.

6. Actions Before Publication

When suspected misconduct is identified before publication, SOCIA may take one or more of the following actions, depending on the evidence:

1. Continue the editorial process if the allegation is not substantiated.
2. Request clarification, supporting evidence, or revision from the authors.
3. Return the manuscript for correction of identifiable and remediable problems.
4. Reject the manuscript when serious misconduct is established or the manuscript does not meet the journal's ethical or scholarly standards.
5. Refer serious concerns to the relevant institution or responsible authority.
6. Document the case confidentially for editorial accountability.

Peer review or production may be suspended while a significant concern is being assessed.

7. Actions After Publication

If credible concerns arise after publication, SOCIA will assess the evidence and determine the action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

1. Correction: An erratum or corrigendum may be published when an error can be corrected without invalidating the overall reliability of the article.
2. Expression of Concern: A notice may be issued when serious concerns remain unresolved and readers need to be informed while further examination is undertaken.
3. Retraction: An article may be retracted when there is reliable evidence of serious misconduct, unreliable findings, plagiarism, or another condition that substantially undermines the integrity of the publication.
4. Institutional notification: Relevant institutions or authorities may be contacted when formal investigation or further action is necessary.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices will identify the affected publication and explain the reason for the action as clearly as possible, subject to confidentiality and applicable ethical requirements. The original publication record will be maintained with an appropriate notice rather than silently altered.

8. Possible Sanctions

Depending on the seriousness, intent, frequency, and evidential basis of the misconduct, SOCIA may impose or recommend the following measures:

• Formal warning or request for corrective action.
• Rejection of the manuscript.
• Correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction of a published article.
• Notification to the author's institution, funding body, or other relevant authority.
• Removal of a reviewer from the journal's reviewer database.
• Reassignment or removal of an editor from editorial responsibilities where justified.
• A temporary restriction on new submissions for serious or repeated violations, following a documented and proportionate editorial decision.
• Notification of other affected journals or publishers when necessary to address duplicate publication or related misconduct.

Sanctions will not be imposed solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. Decisions will be documented, proportionate, and consistent with the available evidence and applicable publication ethics principles.

9. Appeals

A party directly affected by an editorial decision relating to research misconduct may submit a written appeal within 14 calendar days after the decision has been communicated.

The appeal must state the grounds for reconsideration and include relevant evidence or an explanation of any procedural concern. An appeal will, where practicable, be assessed by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision. The appeal process is not intended to repeat the entire investigation without new evidence or a substantive reason for reconsideration.

The journal will communicate the outcome of the appeal to the relevant party. The decision following the appeal will ordinarily be final within the journal's editorial process, without prejudice to the right of relevant parties to contact an appropriate institution or authority.

10. Confidentiality and Record Keeping

• Information concerning allegations and investigations will be restricted to authorised individuals who need it to assess or resolve the case.
• Authors and other parties concerned will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to relevant allegations.
• Records of allegations, evidence, correspondence, and decisions will be retained in accordance with applicable institutional requirements and the journal's record-management practices.
• Public disclosure of findings will be made when necessary to protect the scholarly record and in accordance with applicable ethical and legal requirements.
• Identities will not be disclosed unnecessarily, and confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible throughout the process.

11. Research Misconduct Involving Reviewers or Editors

Allegations involving reviewers are handled by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor without a conflict of interest. Allegations involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to an appropriate senior editorial representative or the publisher, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Depending on the findings, SOCIA may disregard an affected review, appoint a replacement reviewer, reassign editorial responsibilities, remove an individual from the relevant role, or refer the matter to the appropriate institution or publisher.

12. Related Policies

This policy should be read together with SOCIA's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, Peer Review Process, authorship requirements, conflict of interest policy, generative AI policy, and post-publication correction and retraction procedures, where applicable.

This policy is intended to promote transparency, accountability, and responsible scholarly publishing. All cases are assessed individually, taking into account the available evidence, the rights of the parties involved, and the need to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.