Research Misconduct Policy

METHOMIKA | EDITORIAL POLICY

Research Misconduct Policy

Allegations of Research Misconduct: Fair Assessment, Research Integrity, and Responsible Editorial Action.

General Policy

METHOMIKA: Jurnal Manajemen Informatika & Komputerisasi Akuntansi, published by Universitas Methodist Indonesia, is committed to maintaining integrity, honesty, transparency, and accountability throughout the research and scholarly publication process.

The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern submitted manuscripts or published articles. Allegations must be assessed fairly, objectively, confidentially, and on the basis of relevant evidence.

This policy is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning allegations of misconduct, cooperation with research institutions, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Principles for Handling Misconduct Allegations

  • Fairness: All parties must be treated impartially and without prejudgment.
  • Confidentiality: Sensitive information must be disclosed only when necessary and authorized.
  • Evidence-Based Assessment: Decisions must be supported by relevant documentation and reasonable evaluation.
  • Right to Respond: Individuals concerned should have an appropriate opportunity to provide explanations.
  • Proportionality: Editorial actions must reflect the nature and seriousness of the concern.
  • Editorial Independence: Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must not determine the outcome.
  • Research Integrity: The reliability and transparency of the scholarly record must be protected.

1. Scope of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following practices:

Data Fabrication

Inventing research data, observations, experiments, measurements, or results that were not actually obtained.

Data Falsification

Manipulating research materials, datasets, methods, instruments, images, or results in ways that misrepresent the research findings.

Plagiarism

Presenting another person's ideas, words, methods, data, images, software code, or scholarly contributions without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Publishing or submitting substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure, attribution, or a valid scholarly justification.

Authorship Misconduct

Inappropriately including or excluding individuals from authorship, misrepresenting author contributions, or engaging in gift, guest, ghost, or coercive authorship practices.

Citation Manipulation

Inserting irrelevant or unnecessary citations to artificially influence citation metrics or benefit particular individuals or publications.

Peer Review Manipulation

Submitting fraudulent reviewer identities, interfering with independent peer review, or manipulating reviewer reports and editorial evaluations.

Research Ethics Violations

Conducting research without required ethical approval, violating informed consent requirements, misusing confidential information, or improperly processing personal data.

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Deliberately concealing relevant financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could materially affect research or editorial decisions.

Misuse of Artificial Intelligence

Using AI-assisted tools to fabricate data, generate fictitious references, conceal plagiarism, create misleading research images, or misrepresent scientific findings.

2. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, academic institutions, research participants, or other individuals who possess relevant information.

A report should, where possible, include:

  • The manuscript title or published article information.
  • The names of the relevant authors or parties, where known.
  • A clear explanation of the alleged misconduct.
  • Relevant documents, examples, or supporting evidence.
  • Links or citations to related publications, where applicable.
  • Contact information for follow-up, if the reporter chooses to provide it.

Reports may be submitted through the journal's official editorial communication channels. Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. An allegation alone does not establish that misconduct has occurred.

3. Procedure for Handling Misconduct Allegations

Step 1. Receipt and Documentation

The editorial office receives and documents the allegation, including the available supporting information and relevant manuscript or article records.

Step 2. Preliminary Assessment

The editor assesses whether the report contains specific information relevant to research or publication integrity and whether additional clarification or evidence is required.

Step 3. Conflict of Interest Assessment

Editorial personnel with relevant competing interests are excluded from handling or deciding the case. An independent editor should be assigned when necessary.

Step 4. Request for Clarification

Where appropriate, the parties concerned are invited to respond to the issues raised and provide relevant explanations, records, or supporting documentation.

Step 5. Evaluation of Evidence

The editorial team assesses relevant manuscripts, research documentation, similarity reports, reviewer records, publications, and other available evidence. Independent expert advice may be requested when necessary.

Step 6. Institutional Coordination

Serious allegations requiring examination of research conduct, laboratory or institutional records, or individual responsibility may be referred to the appropriate research institution for investigation.

Step 7. Editorial Decision

The editor determines appropriate action within the journal's authority, taking account of the available evidence, relevant institutional findings, and applicable publication ethics guidance.

Step 8. Documentation and Follow-Up

Relevant correspondence, evidence, decisions, and follow-up actions are documented securely. Additional steps may be taken if new material information becomes available.

4. Allegations Before Publication

If an allegation is received while a manuscript is under editorial assessment or peer review, the editorial team may suspend further processing while relevant concerns are evaluated.

Depending on the findings, editorial actions may include:

  • Requesting additional information or clarification.
  • Seeking independent expert evaluation.
  • Requesting correction of reporting or documentation errors.
  • Requiring manuscript revision and further screening.
  • Referring serious allegations to the relevant institution.
  • Declining a manuscript when serious ethical concerns are substantiated.

Manuscripts must not be accepted solely because no formal institutional finding has yet been issued. The editor should consider whether unresolved concerns materially affect publication reliability.

5. Allegations After Publication

Allegations concerning published articles are assessed in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Correction and Retraction policies.

The journal may consider the following actions when supported by the evidence:

Correction

A correction may be issued when a significant error requires amendment but the central findings remain sufficiently reliable.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when substantial unresolved questions warrant alerting readers while further investigation or clarification is ongoing.

Retraction

Retraction may be considered when findings are unreliable, serious plagiarism is established, or other circumstances satisfy accepted retraction criteria. The purpose is to correct the scholarly record.

Formal post-publication notices should identify the affected article, describe the reason for the action, and remain accessible to readers.

6. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Research institutions have an important role in investigating allegations that require examination of researcher conduct, primary data, laboratory records, institutional permissions, or other information beyond the journal's authority or access.

METHOMIKA may communicate relevant concerns and supporting information to authorized institutional representatives when appropriate and consistent with confidentiality obligations.

Institutional investigation and editorial decision-making have distinct purposes. Institutions address research conduct within their authority, while the journal determines actions required to protect the scholarly publication record.

7. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • Conduct and report research honestly and accurately.
  • Preserve relevant research records where reasonably required.
  • Report methods, datasets, analyses, and findings transparently.
  • Obtain ethical approval and informed consent when applicable.
  • Disclose funding and relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Avoid plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and duplicate publication.
  • Provide accurate authorship and contribution information.
  • Respond to reasonable inquiries concerning the reliability of their work.
  • Notify the editorial office when significant errors or ethical concerns are discovered.

8. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers must contribute to the identification and responsible handling of potential research and publication integrity concerns.

  • Report credible concerns supported by available evidence.
  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and case records.
  • Avoid personal accusations and unsupported conclusions.
  • Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Protect the independence of the peer review process.
  • Cooperate with legitimate editorial assessments.
  • Refer issues requiring institutional investigation to appropriate authorities.

9. Confidentiality and Protection of Reporters

Allegations should be handled with appropriate confidentiality, particularly when they involve unpublished manuscripts, sensitive personal information, research participants, or ongoing institutional investigations.

The identity of individuals who report concerns in good faith should be protected to the extent reasonably possible and permitted by applicable law and procedural obligations. Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed absolutely.

The editorial team must not dismiss credible concerns solely because a reporter wishes to remain anonymous. Malicious or knowingly false allegations may also require appropriate assessment.

10. Research Integrity and Artificial Intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence, automated tools, and computational methods must not compromise the authenticity or reliability of scholarly research.

Prohibited practices include:

  • Fabricating experimental data or computational results.
  • Generating fictitious citations or references.
  • Creating misleading research images or evidence.
  • Concealing plagiarism through automated paraphrasing.
  • Misrepresenting AI-generated content as independently verified research findings.
  • Disclosing confidential manuscripts through unauthorized AI services.

Authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, interpretation, and integrity of all submitted material, including content prepared with AI assistance.

11. Documentation and Case Management

The editorial office should maintain appropriate records of misconduct allegations, supporting evidence, communications, editorial assessments, institutional correspondence, and decisions.

Records must be handled securely and accessed only by authorized personnel for legitimate editorial, institutional, or legal purposes. Case management procedures should be reviewed periodically to maintain consistency with recognized publication ethics practices.

12. Complaints and Appeals

Parties affected by an editorial decision involving alleged misconduct may submit a reasoned appeal supported by relevant information.

Appeals should be evaluated by an appropriate editorial representative without a relevant conflict of interest. An appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary correction to the scholarly record or guarantee a change in the original decision.

13. Reporting Channels

Reports concerning potential research or publication misconduct may be submitted to the METHOMIKA editorial office through the official journal contact page or the editorial correspondence facilities in OJS.

Contact the METHOMIKA Editorial Office

Full English Publication Policy

Effective from Volume 11, Number 1 (April 2027), manuscripts intended for publication in METHOMIKA must be written entirely in English. Editorial correspondence, reviewer comments, author responses, manuscript revisions, and scholarly discussions throughout the publication process must also be conducted in English. This language requirement does not prevent the journal from considering evidence submitted in another language when evaluating integrity concerns.

METHOMIKA: Jurnal Manajemen Informatika & Komputerisasi Akuntansi
Published by Universitas Methodist Indonesia
Publication Frequency: April and October
Official Journal Website