Research Misconduct Policy

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Inovasi dan Riset Pendidikan Dasar (JIRPD), published by PT. Intelektiva Global Nusantara, is committed to promoting academic integrity, ethical research practices, and transparent scholarly communication in elementary education.

The journal prohibits fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deceptive reporting, and other serious forms of research and publication misconduct. This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties involved in manuscript submission, peer review, and publication.

JIRPD considers relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing when addressing suspected misconduct.

2. Forms of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct may include the following practices:

Data Fabrication

Inventing student responses, teacher observations, assessment scores, interview transcripts, statistical results, or other research data that were not actually collected.

Data Falsification

Improperly altering educational assessment scores, datasets, participant information, intervention records, or analytical results to produce misleading conclusions.

Plagiarism and Intellectual Property Misappropriation

Using another person's writing, ideas, instructional models, research instruments, figures, data, or other scholarly materials without proper acknowledgment or authorization.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Publishing or submitting substantially the same research findings, analyses, or review content more than once without appropriate disclosure and justification.

Authorship Misconduct

Including authors without qualifying contributions, omitting eligible contributors, coercing authorship, or misrepresenting research responsibilities.

Manipulation of Figures, Instruments, or Supporting Documents

Inappropriately altering research documentation, photographs, instruments, validation records, figures, or other evidence in a manner that misrepresents the study.

Violations of Research Ethics

Failing to meet applicable requirements for institutional approval, school authorization, informed consent, parental or guardian consent when required, participant confidentiality, or protection of children involved in research.

Undisclosed Competing Interests or Misleading Declarations

Concealing relevant competing interests, misrepresenting funding, or providing inaccurate ethical or research transparency declarations.

Editorial or Peer-Review Manipulation

Using false reviewer identities, interfering with editorial decisions, disclosing confidential manuscript information, or exploiting the review process for inappropriate advantage.

3. Honest Error and Research Limitations

Honest calculation errors, methodological limitations, and legitimate differences in scholarly interpretation must be distinguished from deliberate or reckless misrepresentation.

Errors affecting a manuscript or published article may still require correction or other editorial action, even where no intentional misconduct has been established. The appropriate response depends on the evidence and consequences for the reliability of the work.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must ensure that elementary education research and scholarly reviews are conducted and reported responsibly. They must:

  • Report authentic research data and findings without fabrication or inappropriate manipulation.
  • Accurately describe research design, participants, sampling, instruments, procedures, and analyses.
  • Obtain required research permissions, ethical approval, and informed consent.
  • Protect student identities, confidential school records, and information relating to minors.
  • Maintain supporting research documentation where ethically and legally permissible.
  • Acknowledge previously published research and borrowed educational materials.
  • Disclose funding, competing interests, and relevant generative AI use.
  • Provide accurate author contribution statements.
  • Respond to legitimate editorial inquiries and correct identified errors.

5. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors are responsible for protecting editorial independence, maintaining impartiality, evaluating allegations fairly, and taking appropriate action to safeguard the published record.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, provide objective academic assessments, disclose relevant competing interests, and refrain from misusing unpublished information.

Allegations involving editors or reviewers will be handled by an appropriate representative without a relevant conflict of interest. The publisher or appropriate institution may be involved when necessary.

6. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, educators, readers, institutions, research participants, or other relevant parties may report suspected misconduct through the journal's official editorial contact channel.

Reports should identify the manuscript or article, describe the suspected violation, and provide supporting documents, sources, or other relevant evidence where available.

Anonymous allegations may be examined when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The journal will seek to maintain reasonable confidentiality while allowing a fair assessment.

7. Preliminary Assessment and Investigation Procedure

JIRPD applies a structured process to credible allegations of research or publication misconduct:

  1. Receipt and Registration: The editorial office records the allegation and identifies the publication or submission concerned.
  2. Preliminary Examination: An unconflicted editor evaluates available evidence and determines whether further clarification is necessary.
  3. Evidence Preservation: Relevant manuscript versions, editorial records, correspondence, and supporting information are securely retained.
  4. Request for Clarification: Relevant authors or individuals are informed of the substantive concerns, as appropriate, and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
  5. Additional Verification: The journal may request anonymized datasets, research instruments, approvals, documentation, or independent assessment.
  6. Institutional Consultation: Matters requiring a formal investigation of researcher conduct may be referred to the relevant institution or authority.
  7. Editorial Decision: Appropriate action is determined based on available evidence and the journal's responsibility for the scholarly record.
  8. Documentation: The editorial office records the decision and communicates the outcome to relevant parties as appropriate.

8. Cooperation with Institutions and Research Authorities

JIRPD recognizes that universities, schools, employers, and competent authorities may hold responsibility for formal investigations involving researchers or research activities.

The journal may provide relevant concerns and supporting evidence to an appropriate institution and cooperate with legitimate investigations, subject to legal and ethical obligations.

Editorial decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, published corrections, or retractions remain the responsibility of the journal's appropriate editorial leadership, with conflicts of interest managed independently.

9. Editorial Actions Before Publication

If potential research misconduct is identified during submission, editorial assessment, peer review, or production, JIRPD may:

  • Temporarily suspend manuscript processing while reviewing the concern.
  • Request original research data, supporting documents, or additional explanations.
  • Require correction of inaccurate or incomplete information.
  • Reject a manuscript when serious misconduct or unacceptable ethical violations are established.
  • Reconsider or withdraw acceptance before publication where warranted.
  • Refer serious concerns to relevant institutions or competent authorities.

Editorial action must reflect the evidence and should not presume misconduct solely on the basis of an allegation.

10. Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

Research misconduct allegations received after publication will be evaluated under the journal's Publication Ethics and Retraction Policies, considering relevant COPE guidance.

Correction

A correction may be issued when identifiable errors can be addressed without invalidating the article's principal findings and conclusions.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when serious unresolved questions about an article's reliability require notification to readers.

Retraction

An article may be retracted if findings are unreliable, substantial misconduct is confirmed, serious ethical violations compromise the research, or other circumstances justify removal of the article's status as reliable scholarly evidence.

Correction, concern, and retraction notices must be clearly linked to the relevant published article. Retracted articles will ordinarily remain accessible with appropriate labeling to preserve the transparency of the scholarly record.

11. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Appeals

JIRPD handles misconduct allegations with reasonable confidentiality, impartiality, and respect for all parties.

Individuals facing allegations should be given a fair opportunity to respond. Conflicts of interest must be declared and managed, and individuals directly implicated in the matter must not supervise their own investigation.

Authors and complainants may seek reconsideration when material new evidence is available or a significant procedural error is identified. Such requests will be evaluated by an appropriate unconflicted editorial representative.

12. Data Integrity, Participant Protection, and AI Use

JIRPD requires research involving pupils, teachers, and educational institutions to comply with applicable ethical and privacy requirements, including safeguards for children and other potentially vulnerable participants.

Fabricated student assessment results, invented interview evidence, falsified research instruments, misleading statistical analyses, or manipulated research documentation are unacceptable.

Generative AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, participant responses, citations, findings, or research documentation. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of AI-assisted material.

Requests for data verification must respect participant confidentiality, institutional obligations, and applicable restrictions on educational records.

13. Policy References

JIRPD considers internationally recognized publication ethics guidance when handling research integrity concerns:

Commitment to Responsible Educational Research

JIRPD is committed to the responsible publication of elementary education research through the prevention of misconduct, fair handling of credible allegations, protection of research participants, and transparent correction of the scholarly record where necessary.