Allegation and Misconduct

Allegation and Misconduct

Wiraraja Medika: Jurnal Kesehatan is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy describes how the journal handles allegations of research and publication misconduct, in line with the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definition of Misconduct

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

  • Fabrication: making up data, results, or sources and recording or reporting them.
  • Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results so that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism: using another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including self-plagiarism and text recycling.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication, and simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal.
  • Authorship misconduct, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship, and falsely claiming authorship.
  • Image manipulation that misrepresents the original data.
  • Citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation or coercive citation intended to inflate citation metrics.
  • Violations of research ethics, such as conducting human or animal research without ethical clearance or informed consent.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest, and manipulation of the peer review process, including fake reviewers or reviewer impersonation.

2. Submitting an Allegation

Anyone, including readers, reviewers, editors, and authors, may report a suspected case of misconduct. Allegations should be sent in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal’s official contact. To allow a proper assessment, the report should include:

  1. The title, authors, and publication details (volume, issue, DOI) of the article concerned, or the manuscript ID if it is still under review;
  2. A clear description of the alleged misconduct; and
  3. Supporting evidence, such as similarity reports, duplicated sources, or analysis of the data or images.

Anonymous allegations will be considered only if they are accompanied by sufficient and verifiable evidence. The journal will treat the identity of the person who raises a concern, and the details of the case, as confidential for as long as possible.

3. Handling of Allegations

The journal will follow these steps, guided by the relevant COPE flowchart:

  1. The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the allegation and makes an initial assessment of whether it is credible and within the scope of this policy.
  2. If the allegation is credible, the corresponding author is informed in writing and given a reasonable period to respond and provide explanations or supporting data.
  3. The editors may consult the editorial board, independent experts, or reviewers as needed. The accused party is not involved in decisions about their own case, and editors with a conflict of interest are excluded.
  4. If the response is unsatisfactory or the concern remains, the journal may request an investigation by the authors’ institution, funder, or the relevant ethics committee.
  5. A decision is made on the basis of the evidence, and the outcome is communicated to the parties involved.

4. Possible Outcomes and Sanctions

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

  • Rejection of the manuscript if the case is identified before publication;
  • A letter of explanation or education to the authors for minor and unintentional breaches;
  • Publication of a correction (erratum) if parts of a published article are affected;
  • Publication of an expression of concern when the investigation is inconclusive or ongoing;
  • Retraction of the article in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines when the findings are unreliable or misconduct is confirmed;
  • A ban on submissions from the authors concerned for a specified period; and
  • Notification of the authors’ institution, funder, or other relevant authorities.

5. Retraction and Correction

Retracted articles remain available online but are clearly marked as retracted, with a retraction notice that states the reason and who initiated it. The notice is linked to the original article, and the journal will inform the indexing services where the article is listed. Corrections are published in a later issue and linked to the original article.

6. Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within a reasonable period, providing new evidence or a clear justification. The appeal will be reviewed by editors who were not involved in the original decision. The decision on appeal is final.

7. Misconduct by Editors and Reviewers

Allegations against editors, editorial board members, or reviewers are handled under the same principles. The person concerned will not take part in handling the case, and it will be reviewed by another member of the editorial board or the publisher. Reviewers who breach confidentiality, misuse manuscript content, or act with bias may be removed from the reviewer database.