Allegation of Publication Misconduct

Jurnal Sosial Humaniora (JSH) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal published by CV. Surya Buana through Surya Buana Consulting and managed by an Editorial Team officially appointed by the publisher's leadership.

JSH is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, reliability, and ethical standards of scholarly publishing in the social sciences and humanities.

The journal takes credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and addresses such concerns fairly, objectively, confidentially, and transparently.

This policy establishes procedures for reporting, assessing, investigating, and responding to suspected misconduct involving manuscripts, published articles, authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in publication. It is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant guidance.

1. Definition and Scope of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes practices that violate accepted standards of research integrity, academic honesty, and responsible scholarly publishing.

Potential misconduct may include:

  1. Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, or research findings without proper acknowledgment.
  2. Data Fabrication: Inventing research data, observations, interviews, survey responses, or findings.
  3. Data Falsification: Manipulating research data, methods, materials, or processes to misrepresent results.
  4. Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure or acknowledgment.
  5. Authorship Misconduct: Guest, gift, or ghost authorship, unauthorized authorship changes, or misrepresentation of contributions.
  6. Citation Manipulation: Inappropriate citation practices intended primarily to influence citation metrics.
  7. Peer-Review Manipulation: False reviewer identities, fraudulent reviews, or interference with independent evaluation.
  8. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failure to disclose relevant financial, personal, professional, or institutional interests.
  9. Research Ethics Violations: Failure to comply with ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, or participant protection requirements.
  10. Inappropriate AI Use: Using artificial intelligence to fabricate data, invent citations, manipulate evidence, or conceal plagiarism.
  11. Other Ethical Violations: Misappropriation of confidential research, copyright infringement, or other serious violations of scholarly integrity.

Allegations are assessed according to their nature, seriousness, relevance, and available evidence. Honest research errors and legitimate scholarly disagreements do not automatically constitute research misconduct.

2. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

JSH accepts good-faith reports from authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, funding organizations, and other concerned parties.

Reports should preferably include:

  1. The title, DOI, or URL of the article or manuscript concerned.
  2. A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
  3. Relevant supporting evidence or documentation.
  4. An explanation of the possible impact on research integrity.
  5. Contact information, where the reporting party is willing to provide it.

Reports may be submitted through the official JSH Editorial Office.

Reporting Channel: Contact the JSH Editorial Office

An allegation alone does not constitute proof that misconduct has occurred.

3. Initial Assessment of Allegations

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within JSH's responsibilities and whether sufficient information exists to justify further examination.

The assessment considers:

  1. Relevance to a JSH manuscript or publication.
  2. The nature of the alleged ethical violation.
  3. Availability of supporting evidence.
  4. Need for additional documentation.
  5. Potential conflicts of interest among those handling the allegation.

Additional clarification may be requested. Concerns lacking sufficient evidence may be closed or held pending further information. Allegations supported by reasonable grounds proceed to further examination.

The Editorial Team must avoid premature conclusions or unsupported accusations.

4. Investigation and Evidence Evaluation

When further examination is warranted, the responsible editor coordinates an objective assessment of available evidence.

The examination may include:

  1. Reviewing manuscripts, published articles, review reports, and editorial records.
  2. Examining similarity reports, research data, references, or supporting documentation.
  3. Requesting explanations from the individuals concerned.
  4. Consulting qualified independent experts.
  5. Evaluating whether the evidence supports or contradicts the allegation.
  6. Determining whether institutional referral is necessary.

Individuals concerned will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond and provide supporting documentation. Editorial processing may be temporarily suspended when necessary to protect the integrity of the examination.

5. Cooperation with Research Institutions

JSH recognizes that some allegations require formal examination by research institutions, employers, funding organizations, or other competent authorities.

Serious concerns involving fabricated data, research ethics violations, disputed research ownership, institutional misconduct, or misappropriation of confidential materials may be referred to the relevant institution.

The Editorial Team may share relevant evidence and request information about institutional investigation outcomes, subject to confidentiality, legal, and data protection requirements.

JSH does not replace the authority of research institutions to conduct formal investigations into institutional misconduct. The journal retains responsibility for editorial actions involving its manuscripts and publications.

6. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

JSH handles allegations impartially and seeks to protect the rights and legitimate interests of reporting parties and individuals subject to allegations.

The journal will:

  1. Protect confidential information to the extent reasonably possible.
  2. Restrict access to authorized individuals.
  3. Provide opportunities for relevant parties to respond.
  4. Avoid premature public accusations.
  5. Protect reporting-party identities where reasonably possible.
  6. Seek to prevent retaliation or intimidation.
  7. Base decisions on evidence rather than personal or financial interests.

Confidentiality may be limited by applicable legal obligations or the legitimate requirements of an institutional investigation.

7. Allegations Involving Editors, Reviewers, or the Publisher

Allegations involving members of the Editorial Team, peer reviewers, or individuals associated with CV. Surya Buana must be handled independently and impartially.

Individuals directly involved in an allegation or affected by a relevant conflict of interest must not direct the assessment or determine its outcome.

Depending on the circumstances:

  1. An independent editor may assess concerns involving Editorial Team members.
  2. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief may be referred to an independent qualified editor.
  3. Reviewer-related concerns may require independent expert assessment.
  4. Publisher-related concerns must be handled without interference from implicated personnel.
  5. Serious unresolved concerns may be referred to an appropriate external institution or authority.

CV. Surya Buana supports fair procedures while respecting editorial independence. Financial interests and publication fees must not influence the outcome.

8. Editorial Actions and Possible Outcomes

8.1. Before Publication

For manuscripts under editorial evaluation, possible actions include:

  • Requesting clarification or additional evidence.
  • Requiring corrections or revisions.
  • Conducting additional independent peer review.
  • Temporarily suspending manuscript processing.
  • Referring serious concerns to relevant institutions.
  • Declining the manuscript when justified.
  • Continuing evaluation when concerns are resolved.

8.2. After Publication

For published articles, JSH may consider the following corrective actions:

a. Correction: Issued when a significant error requires amendment without invalidating the overall findings.

b. Expression of Concern: Issued when substantial concerns remain unresolved and readers should be informed while further assessment continues.

c. Retraction: Issued when published findings are substantially unreliable or serious misconduct undermines the scholarly record.

d. Institutional Notification: Relevant institutions may be informed when formal investigation or additional action is warranted.

Actions must be proportionate and based on evidence. Retraction notices must explain the reasons and link to the affected publication. Retracted articles ordinarily remain accessible with clear labeling, except where compelling legal, privacy, or safety reasons require otherwise.

9. Good-Faith Reporting and Anonymous Allegations

JSH encourages the reporting of credible ethical concerns in good faith. Anonymous reports will be assessed according to the relevance, specificity, and credibility of their supporting evidence.

The Editorial Team may request additional information when allegations are unclear or insufficiently supported.

An unsubstantiated allegation is not automatically a false or malicious allegation. Knowingly fabricated evidence, deliberately dishonest accusations, harassment, or attempts to manipulate editorial procedures may be referred for appropriate consideration.

10. Documentation, Communication, and Follow-Up

JSH maintains appropriate confidential records of misconduct-related concerns and editorial responses.

Records may include:

  1. The original allegation and evidence.
  2. Preliminary assessment findings.
  3. Communications with relevant parties.
  4. Independent expert or institutional assessments.
  5. Editorial decisions and their rationale.
  6. Corrective actions and follow-up documentation.

Records are maintained through OJS or authorized administrative systems in accordance with applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements.

JSH seeks to address concerns as promptly as reasonably possible. Relevant parties may be informed of the outcome subject to confidentiality and legal restrictions. Significant new evidence may justify reopening a previous assessment.

11. Commitment to Research Integrity

JSH applies this policy consistently to manuscripts and articles written in Bahasa Indonesia and English, regardless of methodology, author affiliation, or manuscript type.

The Editorial Team is responsible for implementing this policy, managing allegations, and safeguarding the integrity of the journal's scholarly record.

CV. Surya Buana provides institutional and operational support while respecting independent academic and editorial decisions. JSH remains committed to continuous improvement of its research integrity and publication ethics procedures.

Ethical References

Reporting and Editorial Contact

For allegations of research or publication misconduct, please contact: JSH Editorial Office .