Allegations of Research Misconduct

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Kontemporer (JRAK) treats the integrity of the scholarly record as a fundamental responsibility. All allegations of research or publication misconduct are investigated in accordance with the flowcharts and guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Scope

 

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

 

  • Fabrication of data or results;
  • Falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data, images, or statistical results;
  • Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and undisclosed text recycling;
  • Duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission and publication;
  • Inappropriate authorship, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Citation manipulation, including coercive or gratuitous citation;
  • Breach of research ethics approval or informed consent requirements;
  • Undisclosed use of artificial intelligence in a manner inconsistent with the journal's AI policy.

 

Reporting an Allegation

 

Allegations may be submitted by reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, or any other party. Reports should be sent in writing to the Editorial Office at jrak@unpas.ac.id with the subject line "Allegation of Research Misconduct" and should include:

 

  1. Identification of the article concerned (title, volume, issue, DOI);
  2. A clear description of the concern;
  3. Any supporting evidence available to the complainant.

 

JRAK will consider anonymous allegations, but anonymity may limit the journal's ability to investigate. The identity of a complainant who provides their name will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by the investigation process.

 

Investigation Procedure

 

  1. Acknowledgement. The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt of the allegation, normally within fourteen working days.
  2. Preliminary assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, with the Editorial Board, assesses whether the allegation is substantive and falls within the journal's scope of responsibility.
  3. Author response. If the allegation is substantive, the corresponding author is informed of the concern and invited to respond in writing, normally within thirty days. Authors are given a fair opportunity to explain and to supply supporting material such as raw data, analysis files, or ethics approval documentation.
  4. Further inquiry. Where the response is unsatisfactory or the matter is serious, JRAK may consult independent experts and may refer the matter to the authors' institution or funding body for formal investigation. JRAK does not itself conduct institutional investigations.
  5. Decision. The Editor-in-Chief determines the appropriate editorial outcome based on the evidence available.

 

Possible Outcomes

 

  • No further action, where the allegation is not substantiated;
  • A request for correction or clarification from the authors;
  • Publication of a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction in accordance with JRAK's Correction and Retraction Policy;
  • Rejection of the manuscript, where the work is not yet published;
  • Notification of the authors' institution or funder;
  • Prohibition on future submissions by the authors concerned for a defined period.

 

Confidentiality and Fairness

 

All allegations are handled confidentially. No conclusion is reached before the authors have had an opportunity to respond. Editors who have a conflict of interest in a case recuse themselves, and the matter is handled by another member of the Editorial Board.

 

Appeals

 

Authors may appeal an editorial decision arising from a misconduct investigation by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within thirty days of notification, setting out the grounds for the appeal. Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.