Allegations of Misconduct

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY · SOCIA: JURNAL ILMU-ILMU SOSIAL

Preventing, investigating, and responding to misconduct.

Definitions, reporting procedures, investigation workflow, and sanctions.

What counts as misconduct

Research misconduct damages the scholarly record and compromises public trust. SOCIA: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial investigates every credible allegation of misconduct in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

FABRICATION	Inventing data, survey responses, interview transcripts, respondents, or research sources.
FALSIFICATION	Manipulating research data, images, processes, or selective removal of inconvenient observations to misrepresent findings.
PLAGIARISM	Appropriating another's work, ideas, translated text, or words without proper attribution or credit.
DUPLICATE / REDUNDANT PUBLICATION	Publishing the same work, or substantially overlapping research, in multiple journals without disclosure or permission.
AUTHORSHIP ABUSE	Listing gift, guest, ghost, or purchased authorship, or using paper mills.
CITATION & REVIEW MANIPULATION	Adding irrelevant citations to inflate metrics, coercive citations, or proposing fake reviewers.
ETHICAL BREACHES	Conducting human research without required ethics committee approval or written informed consent.

Prevention and detection

— Similarity Screening: Turnitin / iThenticate checks performed on every submission and recorded in OJS.
— Declarations: Mandatory author statements covering funding sources, conflicts of interest, human ethics, and AI usage.
— Identity Verification: Reviewer and author credentials verified via institutional emails and ORCID identifiers.
— Editorial Audit: Continuous training for section editors and peer reviewers to detect subtle image or data manipulation.

Reporting an allegation

Anyone may raise a concern: readers, peer reviewers, editors, co-authors, or institutional officers. Reports should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief at socia@uny.ac.id with the subject line "Research Misconduct Concern".

Reports must include:

— Identification of the manuscript or article (title, submission ID, or DOI).
— Specific description of the alleged misconduct and concrete supporting evidence.

Anonymous reports: Evaluated if the accompanying evidence stands on its own merit.

Investigation workflow

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT	Within 7 working days, receipt of the concern is acknowledged.
2. INITIAL ASSESSMENT	Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the allegation is credible, specific, and supported by evidence. Unsubstantiated claims are dismissed.
3. AUTHOR EXPLANATION	Authors are given 14 days (submitted manuscripts) or 30 days (published articles) to respond with evidence.
4. INSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY	For severe issues, the case is referred to the authors' home institution or ethics committee for official investigation.
5. EDITORIAL DECISION	Final decision issued by the Editor-in-Chief in writing and communicated to all involved parties.

Outcomes and sanctions

HONEST ERROR	Publish a formal Correction or Erratum; no sanctions applied.
MINOR MISCONDUCT	Manuscript rejection or correction request, accompanied by a formal warning and author education.
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT	Immediate manuscript rejection or article retraction, 1-to-3 year submission ban, and notification to the author's home institution.

Fairness, confidentiality, and safeguards

— Whistleblower Protection: The identity of the person raising a concern is kept strictly confidential.
— Presumption of Good Faith: Authors are presumed to have acted in good faith until evidence proves otherwise.
— Conflict Recusal: Editors with any conflict of interest take no part in the investigation or decision.
— Record Retention: All case records and correspondence are retained securely for at least 5 years.