Allegations of Research Misconduct
Jurnal Meta-Yuridis takes allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern a submitted manuscript, a published article, or the conduct of an author, reviewer, or editor. This policy explains how allegations are received, assessed, and addressed.
1. Scope
Research or publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to:
-
fabrication or falsification of research data, findings, or sources;
-
plagiarism, including unattributed use of text, ideas, or other material;
-
inappropriate manipulation or presentation of images, tables, or data;
-
duplicate or redundant publication, or misleading reuse of material;
-
misrepresentation of authorship or contributions;
-
citation manipulation or fabricated references;
-
breaches of research ethics, including concerns about consent, approvals, or the treatment of research participants;
-
manipulation of peer review or misuse of confidential information; and
-
failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest or other required information.
An allegation is a concern to be assessed; it is not, by itself, proof of misconduct. Honest errors, differences of opinion, or disputes about interpretation do not automatically constitute misconduct. However, they may require editorial action if they affect the accuracy or integrity of the scholarly record.
2. Submitting an Allegation
Anyone with a concern about a manuscript or article published by Jurnal Meta-Yuridis may contact the journal through the official editorial contact details on its website.
Reports should identify the manuscript or article, describe the concern clearly, and include any available supporting evidence, such as relevant documents, data, or links. Anonymous reports may be considered when they provide specific information that can be assessed. The journal may request further details if the information provided is not sufficient to evaluate the concern.
Reports should be made in good faith. The journal will not assume that an allegation is true solely because it has been submitted.
3. Initial Assessment
The editor or a designated person will assess whether the allegation is sufficiently specific, relevant, and supported to warrant further inquiry. If the allegation concerns the editor or another person responsible for handling it, the matter will be referred to an independent editor or appropriate journal representative.
The journal may ask the person who raised the concern for clarification or additional evidence. It may also conduct an initial review of the manuscript or publication and consult an appropriately qualified independent expert.
4. Inquiry and Response
Where further inquiry is warranted, the journal will take reasonable steps to assess the available evidence fairly and confidentially. This may include:
-
contacting the relevant author or authors and giving them an opportunity to respond;
-
requesting underlying data, source materials, documentation, or explanations;
-
consulting independent experts or relevant editorial board members;
-
using appropriate tools to examine text, images, references, or other materials; and
-
contacting the authors’ institution, employer, funder, or another responsible body when an investigation beyond the journal’s remit is needed.
Automated screening results or expert opinions may inform the assessment, but they do not automatically determine the outcome. The journal will consider the evidence as a whole and give relevant parties a reasonable opportunity to provide information.
5. Role of Institutions and Other Bodies
The journal may refer concerns about research conduct to the institution, employer, funder, or other body responsible for investigating the matter. The journal may request that the relevant body conduct an impartial investigation and inform the journal of its findings, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.
Jurnal Meta-Yuridis is responsible for editorial decisions and for taking appropriate action to protect the scholarly record. It does not replace an institution’s formal investigation or determine employment or disciplinary sanctions.
6. Pending Allegations
If a concern arises before publication, the journal may pause editorial consideration while it assesses the matter or awaits relevant information.
If a serious concern arises after publication and may affect the reliability or integrity of an article, the journal may publish an expression of concern while the matter is being investigated. Such a notice is precautionary and does not, by itself, establish that misconduct occurred.
7. Outcomes and Editorial Action
After considering the available evidence and any responses, the journal may decide to:
-
take no further action if the concern is not substantiated;
-
request clarification, revision, or correction before publication;
-
decline or withdraw a manuscript from consideration;
-
publish an expression of concern, correction, or retraction for a published article, in accordance with the journal’s relevant policies; or
-
refer the matter to an institution, funder, publisher, or other appropriate body.
The action taken will depend on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the evidence available, and the effect on the accuracy or integrity of the scholarly record. The journal may take editorial action where necessary to protect the record, even if an institutional investigation is pending or cannot be completed.
8. Confidentiality and Communication
The journal will handle allegations and related communications as confidentially as practicable, sharing information only with people who need it to assess or address the concern. The journal will take reasonable care to protect the identities of those involved, including people who raise concerns, while recognizing that confidentiality may be limited by the need for a fair inquiry or by applicable requirements.
The journal will inform relevant parties of the outcome where appropriate. Public notices will include information necessary to explain any action affecting a manuscript or published article, while respecting confidentiality and applicable policies.
9. Requests for Reconsideration
A party directly involved may ask the journal to reconsider its handling of a case by providing relevant new evidence or identifying a material procedural concern. The request should be sent through the journal’s official editorial contact channel. Reconsideration does not guarantee a change in the outcome.