Allegation of Research Misconduct

1. Definition of Research Misconduct

Spektrum Industri: Jurnal Ilmiah Pengetahuan dan Penerapan Teknik Industri is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record. Research misconduct refers to violations of accepted standards of research integrity in the conduct, reporting, review, or publication of research. Such misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate authorship practices, citation manipulation, duplicate submission, and manipulation of the peer-review process.

All authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the publication process are expected to uphold the highest standards of research and publication ethics.

2. Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct may include the following practices:

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment, or reusing one's previously published material without proper citation or disclosure.
Data fabrication: Inventing data, results, experiments, or research findings and presenting them as genuine.
Data falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, images, or data, or selectively altering, omitting, or misrepresenting results in a manner that compromises the accuracy of the research.
Duplicate submission and redundant publication: Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, or publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure and justification.
Authorship misconduct: Misrepresenting authorship or contributorship, including the inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of individuals who meet the applicable authorship criteria.
Citation manipulation: Including irrelevant or excessive citations primarily to inflate citation counts for particular authors, publications, or journals.
Peer-review manipulation: Attempting to influence or undermine the integrity of peer review through fabricated reviewer identities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, coercion, or other inappropriate practices.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest or ethical violations: Failing to disclose relevant competing interests or failing to obtain required ethical approval for research involving human participants, animals, confidential data, or other regulated research activities.

3. Procedure for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

When an allegation or suspicion of research misconduct is raised, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team will assess the concern fairly, confidentially, and objectively. The journal will follow the relevant procedures and guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including applicable flowcharts for suspected research and publication misconduct.

The procedure generally consists of the following steps:

Receipt of the allegation: The journal receives and records the allegation, together with any available supporting evidence. Allegations may concern manuscripts under review or articles that have already been published.
Initial assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and falls within the scope of research or publication misconduct. Relevant conflicts of interest involving the complainant or other parties are also considered.
Request for explanation: Where appropriate, the corresponding author is contacted and invited to provide a clear explanation and supporting documentation on behalf of the authors. Other relevant parties may be contacted when necessary.
Further investigation: If the concern remains unresolved, the editorial team may seek additional evidence, consult independent experts, or request assistance from the authors' affiliated institution or other relevant authorities. The journal will not make a definitive finding of institutional research misconduct beyond the evidence and authority available to it.
Editorial decision: After reviewing the available evidence and responses, the journal determines the appropriate editorial action in accordance with its policies and relevant publication ethics guidance.
Communication and documentation: The outcome is communicated to the relevant parties as appropriate, and the journal maintains a confidential record of the case and the actions taken.

All allegations will be handled without presuming misconduct before the available evidence has been assessed. The journal will seek to protect the confidentiality and rights of all parties involved throughout the process.

4. Actions and Sanctions

Depending on the nature, severity, and timing of the suspected misconduct, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

Reject the submitted manuscript.
Request clarification, additional evidence, or corrections before making an editorial decision.
Suspend the review or publication process while a serious concern is investigated.
Publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for a published article, where warranted.
Notify the authors' affiliated institution or other relevant authorities when appropriate and justified by the evidence.
Restrict further consideration of submissions from individuals involved in substantiated and serious misconduct, where permitted by the journal's policies and applicable rules.

For published articles, any correction, expression of concern, or retraction will be linked to the original article, and the reason for the action will be stated as clearly as appropriate to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

5. Institutional Responsibilities

Authors and their affiliated institutions are expected to cooperate with legitimate investigations into research misconduct. Where a matter requires formal investigation beyond the journal's remit, the journal may refer the concern to the relevant institution or competent authority. The journal may consider the findings of such investigations when determining the appropriate editorial response.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Spektrum Industri provides a procedure for receiving and considering complaints concerning the journal, its editorial staff, Editorial Board, reviewers, publisher, or editorial processes. Complaints may involve suspected citation manipulation, unfair editorial treatment, conflicts of interest, peer-review irregularities, or other concerns relating to publication ethics.

Complaints should include a clear description of the concern and relevant supporting evidence where available. The complaint will be assessed by an editor or designated representative who is not directly involved in the matter, where practicable. If a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it will be referred to an appropriate independent representative of the journal or publisher.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned explanation and relevant evidence. Appeals and complaints will be handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal's policies and applicable COPE guidance.

7. Research Ethics and Responsible Data Handling

Authors must disclose relevant ethical considerations in their manuscripts. Research involving human participants, animals, sensitive or confidential information, hazardous materials, or regulated procedures must comply with applicable ethical standards and legal requirements. Where required, authors must provide evidence of approval from an appropriate ethics committee or authorized institution.

Authors are also responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of research data, images, analyses, and reported findings. Suspected manipulation or misuse of research data will be assessed under this policy.

8. Commitment to Publication Ethics

Spektrum Industri is committed to addressing suspected research misconduct consistently, impartially, and transparently, while respecting confidentiality and due process. By investigating credible concerns and taking proportionate action where warranted, the journal seeks to safeguard the reliability of published research and maintain trust in the scholarly record.

COPE Flowcharts and Procedures

Spektrum Industri: Jurnal Ilmiah Pengetahuan dan Penerapan Teknik Industri handles allegations of research and publication misconduct in accordance with its editorial policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The editorial team uses the applicable COPE flowcharts as procedural guidance when handling suspected cases of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, redundant publication, authorship disputes, citation manipulation, and other publication ethics concerns. Depending on the nature of the allegation, the journal may request an explanation from the authors, examine supporting evidence, consult independent experts, or contact the authors' affiliated institutions when appropriate.

If an allegation concerns a published article, the journal will consider appropriate actions, such as issuing a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, depending on the findings and the circumstances of the case.

Editors are encouraged to consult the official COPE resources: