Research Misconduct Policy
1. Policy Statement
The International Journal of Education and Learning Studies (IJELS), published by PT. Intelektiva Global Nusantara, is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, transparency, and reliability of scholarly research and publication.
IJELS does not tolerate research misconduct, publication malpractice, deliberate misrepresentation, or unethical practices that compromise the accuracy of the scholarly record. This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the journal's editorial and publication processes.
The journal follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and considers relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when handling allegations of misconduct.
2. Definition and Scope of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other serious deviations from responsible research and publication practices. The following categories may constitute research or publication misconduct depending on the evidence and circumstances.
Inventing research data, participants, observations, measurements, findings, or results and reporting them as authentic evidence.
Manipulating research materials, instruments, procedures, datasets, analyses, or results so that the reported findings do not accurately represent the research conducted.
Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, figures, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment or authorization.
Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping material without proper disclosure, citation, justification, or other required permissions.
Gift, ghost, honorary, coercive, or otherwise misleading authorship; falsification of contributions; or unauthorized changes to the author list.
Inappropriately altering, duplicating, selectively presenting, or misrepresenting images, figures, documents, or other evidence in ways that distort the findings.
Conducting or reporting research without applicable ethical approval, informed consent, participant protection, or required authorization; or providing false ethics documentation.
Concealing relevant financial or non-financial interests, misrepresenting funding sources, or providing misleading declarations that affect research transparency.
Fabricating reviewer identities, manipulating reviewer recommendations, interfering with editorial independence, breaching peer-review confidentiality, or exploiting confidential manuscript information.
3. Distinguishing Misconduct from Honest Error
Research misconduct must be distinguished from honest mistakes, reasonable differences in scientific interpretation, or methodological limitations that have been transparently reported.
When an error is identified, the editorial response will consider its nature, severity, effect on the reliability of the work, and available evidence. Significant errors may require correction or retraction even when no intentional misconduct is established.
4. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors are responsible for ensuring the integrity and accuracy of their submissions. Authors must:
- Report authentic research data, methods, analyses, and findings.
- Maintain relevant documentation supporting their work.
- Obtain applicable ethical approval and informed consent.
- Present participant information responsibly and protect confidentiality.
- Disclose funding, competing interests, and substantive generative AI use.
- Accurately identify authorship contributions and acknowledge other contributors.
- Disclose previous publications and related manuscripts.
- Correct significant errors and cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries.
Authors may be requested to provide anonymized data, research protocols, ethics documentation, or other appropriate evidence, subject to legal, ethical, and confidentiality restrictions.
5. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers
Editors must evaluate allegations impartially, protect editorial independence, manage conflicts of interest, and safeguard the integrity of published work. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, or personal relationships.
Reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality, provide objective assessments, disclose competing interests, and refrain from using unpublished manuscript content for personal benefit.
Suspected misconduct involving an editor or reviewer must be assessed by an appropriate unconflicted editorial or publisher representative. Serious matters may be referred to the relevant institution or other competent body.
6. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct
Concerns about potential misconduct may be reported by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, research participants, or other relevant parties through the journal's official editorial contact channel.
Reports should, where possible, identify the manuscript or article, describe the suspected misconduct, and provide relevant evidence or references.
Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect complainants and maintain confidentiality, while recognizing that disclosure may be necessary for a fair investigation or required by law.
7. Preliminary Assessment and Investigation Procedure
IJELS handles credible allegations through a structured editorial process:
- Receipt and Registration: The editorial office records the allegation and identifies the manuscript, article, or individuals concerned.
- Initial Assessment: An unconflicted editor evaluates the specificity, credibility, available evidence, and potential seriousness of the concern.
- Preservation of Evidence: Relevant correspondence, manuscript versions, reports, and supporting information are retained securely.
- Author or Party Clarification: The person or persons concerned are informed of the substantive concerns as appropriate and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
- Further Verification: The journal may request underlying data, documentation, independent expert assessment, or clarification from relevant institutions.
- Editorial Determination: The editorial team determines appropriate action concerning the submitted or published material based on the available evidence.
- Communication and Documentation: Relevant parties are informed of the outcome to the extent appropriate, and the editorial decision is documented.
The journal does not ordinarily substitute for a university, employer, funding body, or regulatory authority in determining institutional disciplinary responsibility.
8. Cooperation with Research Institutions
When allegations require access to institutional records, investigation of researcher conduct, or other matters beyond the journal's authority, IJELS may refer the concerns and supporting evidence to the relevant research institution, employer, or competent authority.
The journal will cooperate with legitimate investigations while respecting confidentiality, privacy, applicable law, and editorial independence.
Institutional findings may inform editorial decisions, but the Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for decisions concerning the journal's scholarly record, subject to appropriate conflict-of-interest procedures.
9. Editorial Actions Before Publication
If potential misconduct is identified before publication, the Editorial Board may:
- Suspend editorial processing or peer review pending clarification.
- Request supporting evidence, original data, or additional documentation.
- Require corrections to inaccurate or incomplete reporting.
- Reject the manuscript when serious misconduct or unacceptable ethical violations are established.
- Reconsider or withdraw an acceptance decision before publication where justified.
- Notify appropriate institutions or authorities in serious cases, subject to applicable procedures.
Decisions must be proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent with due process. Allegations alone do not establish guilt.
10. Post-Publication Actions
Concerns identified after publication will be evaluated according to the journal's Publication Ethics, Correction, and Retraction Policies, taking account of relevant COPE guidance.
A correction may be issued when a specific error or omission can be addressed without undermining the reliability of the principal findings.
An expression of concern may be issued when serious questions remain unresolved and readers need to be alerted while investigations continue or evidence remains inconclusive.
Retraction may be warranted when the findings are unreliable, serious misconduct is established, duplicate publication substantially compromises the record, or research ethics violations make the article unsuitable to remain as valid scholarly evidence.
Retraction notices should be clearly identified, state the reason for retraction, remain publicly accessible, and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles should ordinarily remain available with a prominent retraction notice rather than being silently removed.
11. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Appeals
All allegations will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Individuals involved must be treated fairly and given an appropriate opportunity to provide explanations or evidence.
Conflicts of interest must be identified and managed. Individuals directly implicated in an allegation must not control the assessment of their own conduct.
Authors or complainants may request reconsideration of an editorial determination by providing relevant new evidence or identifying a material procedural error. Reconsideration will be handled by an editor or publisher representative without a relevant conflict of interest.
12. Research Data, Transparency, and Generative AI
Authors remain accountable for the accuracy and reliability of all submitted content, including materials produced with the assistance of generative AI tools.
Fabricated references, AI-generated fictitious data, manipulated evidence, or undisclosed use of AI that materially misrepresents the research may be treated as publication misconduct.
Data verification requests must respect participant privacy, research ethics approvals, institutional obligations, and applicable data protection requirements.
13. Policy References
IJELS considers the following resources when reviewing matters of research integrity and publication misconduct:
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidance
- COPE Retraction Guidelines
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
IJELS is committed to preventing research misconduct, investigating credible allegations fairly, protecting editorial independence, and correcting the scholarly record when necessary. These responsibilities apply before and after publication.
