Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct
Sustainable: Accounting Journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern manuscripts under review or articles that have already been published. All allegations are handled in accordance with the guidelines and case-handling flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
- Types of Misconduct
Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:
- Fabrication: Inventing or creating data, sources, interview results, or court decisions that do not actually exist.
- Falsification: Manipulating, altering, or selectively omitting data or legal materials in a manner that misrepresents the research findings.
- Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, or work without appropriate acknowledgment or citation, including self-plagiarism or text recycling without disclosure.
- Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing the same or substantially similar work in more than one journal or publication.
- Authorship Misconduct: Engaging in ghost authorship, gift authorship, or guest authorship, as well as adding or removing an author's name without their consent (see the journal's Authorship Criteria policy).
- Citation Manipulation: Excessively or inappropriately citing one's own work, or engaging in citation arrangements intended to artificially increase citation metrics.
- Peer Review Manipulation: Suggesting fake reviewers, reviewing one's own work, or breaching the confidentiality of the peer review process.
- Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose financial, institutional, or personal interests that could influence the work.
- Unethical Research Practices: Conducting empirical research involving human participants, such as interviews or surveys, without obtaining adequate informed consent or ensuring the confidentiality of participants.
- Undisclosed Use of Artificial Intelligence: Using artificial intelligence in a manner that is not disclosed and is inconsistent with the journal's established AI policy.
- Reporting Allegations of Misconduct
Anyone may report suspected misconduct, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and institutions. Reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief via email at sustainable@um-surabaya.ac.id, with the subject line "Allegation of Research Misconduct."
Reports should include the following information:
- The title of the manuscript or article concerned and 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 submitting the report.
The journal will consider anonymous reports if they are supported by sufficient and verifiable evidence. However, the journal may be unable to pursue a case if the information provided is insufficient.
- Confidentiality and Protection
All allegations of misconduct are handled confidentially. The identity of the complainant will not be disclosed to the person accused of misconduct without the complainant's consent.
During the investigation, the journal treats the accused party as not having been found responsible for misconduct unless and until sufficient evidence supports such a conclusion. Allegations made in bad faith or demonstrably lacking a reasonable basis may themselves be treated as a separate form of misconduct.
- Investigation Procedure
- Initial Review. The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges receipt of the report and assesses whether the allegation has a reasonable basis and is supported by sufficient evidence.
- Evidence Gathering. The editorial team examines the relevant manuscript or article, using tools such as similarity-checking software where appropriate, and gathers any additional information necessary for the investigation.
- Clarification from the Author. The corresponding author is provided with the evidence relating to the allegation and given an opportunity to respond within a specified period.
- Evaluation. The editor evaluates the author's response. Where necessary, the editor may consult members of the editorial board, independent experts, or COPE.
- Referral to the Institution. If the explanation provided is unsatisfactory or the case is considered serious, the journal may request that the author's affiliated institution or funding body conduct an independent investigation.
- Decision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on all available evidence and communicates the outcome to the relevant parties.
- Possible Actions
Depending on the severity of the misconduct, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:
- For manuscripts under review: Return the manuscript to the author for revision or reject the manuscript.
- For published articles: Publish a correction (erratum or corrigendum), an expression of concern, or a retraction. Retraction notices will be linked to the original article, which will remain available on the journal's website and be clearly marked as "Retracted."
- Further actions: Notify the author's affiliated institution or funding body and prohibit the author from submitting manuscripts to the journal for a specified period.
- Misconduct by Editors or Reviewers
Allegations of misconduct involving members of the editorial team or reviewers are handled using the same procedures. Any editor named in an allegation will not participate in handling the case.
If the allegation involves the Editor-in-Chief, the case will be handled by another senior member of the editorial board or referred to the publisher, namely the UMSurabaya Publishing.
- 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 include new evidence or arguments. It will be reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision-making process. The outcome of the appeal review is final.
