Allegation of Research Misconduct
Journal of Engineering Environtmental Energy and Science (JOE3S) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, credibility, and integrity of the scholarly record.
Research misconduct and publication ethics violations are treated as serious matters. The journal follows the guidance and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when handling allegations of research misconduct.
COPE guidance on publication misconduct:
https://publicationethics.org/misconduct
Definition of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct refers to actions that violate accepted standards of research integrity and publication ethics in conducting, reviewing, documenting, reporting, or publishing research.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
- Fabrication: Inventing research data, results, experiments, or information and reporting them as genuine.
- Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, data, images, or results in a way that misrepresents the research findings.
- Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
- Citation manipulation: Inappropriately influencing citations to artificially increase citation counts or impact indicators.
- Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without proper disclosure or acknowledgment.
- Unethical research practices: Conducting research without applicable ethical approval or in violation of relevant ethical requirements.
- Authorship misconduct: Misrepresenting authorship, including ghost authorship, honorary authorship, or unauthorized authorship changes.
- Peer-review manipulation: Deliberately interfering with or compromising the integrity of the peer-review process.
- Data and image manipulation: Inappropriately altering research data, figures, images, or experimental results.
- Other serious ethical violations: Including undisclosed competing interests, copyright infringement, and deliberate misrepresentation of research findings.
Honest errors, legitimate differences in scientific interpretation, and academic disagreements do not automatically constitute research misconduct.
Reporting Suspected Misconduct
Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, and other relevant parties may report suspected research misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief or editorial team.
Reports should include sufficient information and supporting evidence to allow an appropriate assessment.
The journal will treat all allegations seriously and handle them confidentially and impartially.
Anonymous reports may be considered when they provide sufficiently specific and verifiable information.
Initial Assessment
Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine:
- Whether the allegation relates to research integrity or publication ethics.
- Whether sufficient evidence is available to justify further investigation.
- Whether the individuals involved have relevant competing interests.
- Whether immediate editorial action is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
An allegation alone is not sufficient to establish misconduct.
Investigation Procedure
When there are reasonable grounds to suspect research misconduct, the journal may initiate an investigation through the following steps:
- Notification: The corresponding author will be informed of the concerns and invited to provide an explanation on behalf of the co-authors, where appropriate.
- Evidence assessment: The editorial team will examine relevant manuscripts, research data, supporting documents, similarity reports, and correspondence.
- Expert consultation: Independent experts, including statistical or methodological specialists, may be consulted when necessary.
- Institutional consultation: The journal may contact the authors' affiliated institutions, research ethics committees, or relevant authorities for further investigation.
- Editorial decision: The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the evidence and determine the appropriate action.
Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final decision is made, where appropriate.
Actions on Submitted Manuscripts
If a submitted manuscript is found to contain confirmed serious research misconduct or publication ethics violations, the journal may reject the manuscript.
Depending on the findings, the journal may also request clarification, additional documentation, or appropriate revisions.
Actions on Published Articles
If a published article is found to involve serious research misconduct, the journal may take appropriate editorial action, including:
- Publishing a correction.
- Publishing an Expression of Concern.
- Publishing a retraction notice.
- Requesting further institutional investigation.
- Taking other appropriate actions to protect the scholarly record.
The decision will depend on the nature, severity, and impact of the misconduct.
Institutional Responsibility
Authors' affiliated institutions are expected to investigate allegations of research misconduct in accordance with applicable institutional policies and research integrity standards.
JOE3S may request institutional clarification or investigation results when necessary.
However, the final decision regarding the editorial status of an article published in JOE3S remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
Commitment to Research Integrity
JOE3S recognizes that authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and research institutions share responsibility for maintaining the reliability and integrity of scientific publications.
All allegations will be handled fairly, transparently, and in accordance with applicable COPE guidance and the journal's publication ethics policies.
