BALANCE: Economic, Business, Management and Accounting Journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern manuscripts currently under review or articles that have already been published. All such allegations are handled in accordance with the guidelines and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Types of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Fabrication: Creating or inventing data, sources, interview results, or court rulings that do not actually exist.

b. Falsification: Manipulating, altering, or selectively omitting data or legal materials, resulting in an inaccurate presentation of research findings.

c. Plagiarism: Using the ideas, words, or work of others without proper acknowledgment or citation; this also includes self-plagiarism (reusing one’s own previously published text) without disclosure.

d. Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing the same or substantially similar work in more than one journal or publication.

e. Authorship Misconduct: Practices such as ghost authorship, gift authorship, or guest authorship, as well as the addition or removal of an author’s name without their consent (see Authorship Criteria).

f. Citation Manipulation: The excessive or irrelevant inclusion of citations to one’s own work, or the orchestration of citations for the purpose of artificially inflating citation metrics.

g. Peer Review Manipulation: proposing fake reviewers, reviewing one’s own work, or violating the confidentiality of the review process.

h. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: failing to declare financial, institutional, or personal interests that could influence the work.

i. Unethical Research Practice: conducting empirical research involving human participants such as interviews or surveys without obtaining informed consent or failing to protect the confidentiality of the participants.

j. Undisclosed Use of Artificial Intelligence: utilizing artificial intelligence in a manner that contradicts the AI ​​Policy established by the journal.

2. Procedures for Reporting Alleged Misconduct

Anyone may report alleged misconduct, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and institutions. Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief via email at balance@um-surabaya.ac.id , with the subject line “Allegation of Research Misconduct.”

Reports must include the following information:

-           The title of the manuscript or article in question, along with its DOI (if available).

-           A clear description of the alleged misconduct.

-           Supporting evidence, such as original sources, comparative documents, or relevant correspondence.

-           The name and contact information of the person making the report.

The journal will consider anonymous reports, provided they are supported by sufficient and verifiable evidence. However, the journal may be unable to take action if the information provided is insufficient.

3. Confidentiality and Protection

All allegations of misconduct are handled confidentially. The identity of the person making the report will not be disclosed to the party accused of misconduct without the reporter’s consent. Throughout the investigation process, the journal treats the accused party as not having committed any misconduct until sufficient evidence is found to conclude otherwise. Allegations of misconduct made in bad faith or those proven to be groundless may themselves be treated as a form of misconduct.

4. Investigation Procedure

a. Initial Review. The Editor-in-Chief confirms receipt of the report and assesses whether it has a reasonable basis and is supported by sufficient evidence.

b. Evidence Gathering. The editorial team examines the manuscript or article in question—utilizing tools such as similarity-detection software, where relevant—and collects any other necessary information.

c. Clarification from the Author. The corresponding author is provided with evidence regarding the alleged misconduct and given the opportunity to submit an explanation within a specified timeframe.

d. Evaluation. The editors evaluate the author’s response. If necessary, they may consult with members of the editorial board, independent experts, or COPE.

e. Referral to the Institution. If the explanations provided are unsatisfactory or the case is considered serious, the journal may request that the author’s affiliated institution or funding body conduct an independent investigation.

f. Decision-making. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on all available evidence and notifies the relevant parties.

5. Possible Actions

Depending on the severity of the misconduct, actions that may be taken include:

• For manuscripts currently under review: returning the manuscript to the author for revision or rejecting the manuscript.

• For published articles: issuing a correction (erratum or corrigendum), an expression of concern, or a retraction. A retraction notice will be linked to the original article, which remains on the website but is clearly marked as “Retracted.”

• Further actions: notifying the author’s affiliated institution or funding body, and prohibiting the author from submitting manuscripts to the journal for a specified period.

6. Misconduct by Editors or Reviewers

Alleged misconduct involving members of the editorial team or reviewers is handled using the same procedures. Any editor named in a report of alleged misconduct will not be involved in handling that case.

If the alleged misconduct involves the Editor-in-Chief, the case will be handled by other senior members of the editorial board or referred to the publisher the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya.

7. Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of being notified of the decision. The appeal must be supported by new evidence or arguments. It will be reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the initial decision-making process. The outcome of the review of the objection is final.