Research Misconduct

1. General Principles

Khazanah: Journal of Islamic Education and Science is committed to maintaining integrity, honesty, transparency, and accountability throughout the scholarly publishing process. The journal does not tolerate any form of research misconduct that may compromise the validity of research data, the credibility of findings, the originality of scholarly work, or public trust in academic publications.

All authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties involved in the publication process are expected to comply with established principles of research ethics and publication integrity. Allegations of misconduct will be handled objectively, proportionately, and confidentially where appropriate, based on evidence that can be examined and assessed.

This policy applies to manuscripts under submission, peer review, or acceptance, as well as articles that have already been published by the journal.

2. Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes actions that violate the principles of research integrity and publication ethics, including but not limited to the following.

2.1 Fabrication

Fabrication refers to inventing data, research results, participants, observations, interviews, or other research evidence that was never actually obtained or generated through the reported research process.

2.2 Falsification

Falsification refers to manipulating research materials, procedures, instruments, data, images, analytical results, or findings so that the research record no longer accurately represents what was conducted or observed.

2.3 Plagiarism

Plagiarism refers to using another person's ideas, data, text, images, tables, or other intellectual work without appropriate acknowledgment. It may also include inappropriate reuse of one's own previously published work without proper disclosure or citation when such reuse creates a misleading impression of originality.

2.4 Duplicate Publication and Simultaneous Submission

Duplicate publication refers to publishing the same or substantially overlapping scholarly content more than once without appropriate disclosure or authorization. Simultaneous submission occurs when the same or substantially similar manuscript is submitted to multiple journals at the same time in violation of the applicable submission policies.

2.5 Authorship Misconduct

Authorship misconduct includes honorary or gift authorship, ghost authorship, the omission of contributors who meet the authorship criteria, listing individuals without their consent, and changing the author list without the agreement of the relevant parties.

2.6 Peer Review Manipulation

Peer review manipulation includes providing false reviewer identities, submitting misleading reviewer information, manipulating review recommendations, or engaging in other unethical attempts to influence editorial decisions.

2.7 Research Ethics Violations

Research ethics violations may include collecting data without required ethical approval, violating informed consent requirements, using data without proper authorization, breaching participant privacy, or engaging in other practices that violate applicable research ethics requirements.

2.8 Reference Manipulation and Fabricated Sources

This category includes citing nonexistent references, falsifying quotations, citing sources that do not support the associated claims, or manipulating reference lists in ways that mislead readers.

2.9 Misuse of Artificial Intelligence

Misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) includes using AI tools to generate fabricated research data, false references, misleading images or evidence, or other content that has not been properly verified but is presented as legitimate research output. Failure to disclose AI use when required by the journal's applicable policy may also be addressed under this policy.

The categories above are not exhaustive. Other actions that materially undermine research integrity may be investigated in accordance with the available evidence and relevant ethical guidance.

3. Receipt of Allegations or Reports

Allegations of research misconduct may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, academic institutions, or other parties with relevant information.

Reports should be submitted in writing through the journal's official email address or editorial communication channel and should include, where available:

  1. The reporter's identity and contact information.

  2. The title of the manuscript or article concerned.

  3. The names of the authors or parties allegedly involved.

  4. A description of the suspected misconduct.

  5. Supporting evidence, such as documents, datasets, publication links, similarity reports, or relevant correspondence.

The journal may assess reports from unidentified sources when the information and evidence provided are sufficiently specific to warrant examination.

All reports will be taken seriously. Individuals who raise concerns in good faith must not be subjected to retaliation for making a report.

4. Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving a report, the editor or a designated editorial representative will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine the relevance and adequacy of the information provided.

The preliminary assessment may include:

  1. Confirming that the allegation concerns a manuscript or article within the journal's remit.

  2. Reviewing the initial evidence and determining whether there is a reasonable basis for further examination.

  3. Identifying potential conflicts of interest among those responsible for handling the case.

  4. Determining whether clarification should be requested from authors, reviewers, editors, or other relevant parties.

  5. Deciding whether the matter can be addressed through editorial clarification or requires further investigation.

Reports that lack sufficient supporting evidence may be closed with documented reasons. However, the journal may request additional information when credible indications of misconduct are present.

5. Investigation and Evidence Collection

When the preliminary assessment identifies reasonable grounds for concern, the journal will conduct further examination proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the allegation.

The process may include:

  1. Collecting and preserving relevant records, including manuscripts, revised versions, available research data, similarity reports, correspondence, and editorial records.

  2. Requesting a written explanation from the authors or relevant parties and allowing a reasonable opportunity to respond.

  3. Assessing whether the explanations are consistent with the available evidence.

  4. Seeking independent expert advice when specialized knowledge is required.

  5. Contacting the institution where the research was conducted or another relevant institution when formal investigation beyond the journal's authority is necessary.

  6. Preparing a documented record of the examination, including the evidence reviewed, responses received, editorial considerations, and reasons for the decision.

The process must be fair and must not presume that a reported party is guilty before the available evidence and responses have been adequately assessed.

The journal is responsible for evaluating the publication ethics implications of a case and the suitability of a manuscript or article for publication. However, the journal does not replace the authority of institutions or competent bodies in conducting formal investigations into research misconduct that require procedures beyond the editorial process.

6. Documentation and Confidentiality

All stages of case handling must be documented adequately, including:

  • The date the report was received.

  • Relevant information about the reporter.

  • A summary of the allegation.

  • Evidence and documents examined.

  • Requests for clarification and responses received.

  • Records of communication with institutions or independent experts.

  • Editorial considerations, decisions, and actions taken.

  • The date the case was concluded and any subsequent follow-up.

Records must be stored securely and accessed only by authorized individuals who need the information to handle the case.

Information concerning the reporter, the person or parties reported, and the evidence examined will be treated confidentially where appropriate and in accordance with applicable legal obligations and research integrity requirements. Confidentiality must not be used to obstruct a legitimate investigation or applicable disclosure obligations.

7. Communication with Relevant Parties

The journal will communicate professionally and maintain appropriate records of communications throughout the handling of a case.

Communication may involve:

  1. The reporter, to acknowledge receipt of the report when contact information is available.

  2. The author or reported party, to request clarification and provide an opportunity to respond to the allegation.

  3. Relevant editors or reviewers, when their information is necessary and their involvement does not create a conflict of interest.

  4. Relevant institutions, when formal investigation or independent verification is required.

  5. Readers and the scholarly community, when a public notice is necessary to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the publication record.

All communications must be neutral, non-judgmental, and based on relevant information. Confidential information must not be disclosed to unauthorized parties.

8. Decisions and Follow-up Actions

After considering the evidence, responses from relevant parties, and the results of the available examination, the editor or Editor-in-Chief will determine the appropriate editorial action.

Possible actions include:

  1. Insufficient grounds for misconduct: The case is closed, and the reasons are documented.

  2. Clarification or correction required: The author is asked to provide an explanation, revise the manuscript, or supply relevant information.

  3. Violation of editorial requirements: The manuscript may be rejected or editorial processing may be discontinued, depending on the seriousness of the violation.

  4. Serious unresolved allegations: The journal may suspend its decision and request further examination by the relevant institution.

  5. Established misconduct or an unreliable publication record: The journal may issue a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with its correction and retraction policy.

  6. Misconduct involving editorial personnel: The case will be transferred to an independent editor or another appropriate person who has no conflict of interest.

Decisions must be based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the misconduct, its impact on the reliability of the article, and relevant ethical guidance. The journal will not impose an automatic sanction based solely on a single indicator without considering the context and supporting evidence.

9. Handling of Published Articles

When an allegation concerns a published article, the journal will assess whether the issue affects the reliability of the data, findings, attribution, or integrity of the publication record.

Where necessary, the journal may:

  1. Request clarification and additional evidence from the authors.

  2. Contact the relevant institution to obtain information from an appropriate investigation.

  3. Publish a correction when an error can be remedied without undermining the overall reliability of the article.

  4. Publish an expression of concern when a serious issue remains under investigation and readers need to be informed.

  5. Retract the article when sufficient grounds exist under the journal's policy.

Correction notices, expressions of concern, and retraction notices must clearly explain the reasons for the action and be linked to the relevant article. The publication record must remain transparent, including the status of corrected or retracted articles.

10. Conflicts of Interest in Case Handling

Any person with a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or other interest that could compromise the impartiality of a case must disclose that conflict.

A person with a relevant conflict of interest must not make the principal decision in the case. The Editor-in-Chief may appoint an independent editor or another uninvolved party to ensure that the matter is handled fairly and objectively.

11. Reports Made in Bad Faith

The journal distinguishes between an allegation that is not substantiated and a report that is deliberately based on fabricated evidence or knowingly false information.

An unsubstantiated allegation does not, by itself, demonstrate that the reporter acted in bad faith. If evidence indicates that an individual deliberately fabricated evidence or knowingly made a false allegation, the journal may conduct a separate assessment and take proportionate action.

12. Ethical Guidance and Implementation

This policy is implemented in accordance with established principles of research integrity and scholarly publication ethics, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal will review and update this policy when necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing practices, applicable regulations, and relevant ethical guidance.

All authors, editors, reviewers, and other relevant parties are expected to read, understand, and comply with this policy as part of their shared commitment to maintaining the integrity and credibility of scholarly publications.