Allegations of Misconduct

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Advanced Science Computing and Engineering (IJASCE) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of the scholarly record. The journal takes seriously credible concerns relating to research integrity, publication ethics, peer review, editorial conduct, and published content, whether those concerns arise before or after publication.

This policy describes how IJASCE receives, assesses, and responds to allegations of potential misconduct or other serious integrity concerns. The policy is informed by the COPE Core Practice on Allegations of Misconduct, relevant COPE flowcharts and guidelines, the COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases, the COPE Retraction Guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

IJASCE distinguishes between the journal's editorial assessment of a concern and a formal investigation of research misconduct. The journal evaluates concerns insofar as they affect a submitted manuscript, the editorial process, or the reliability and integrity of published content. When formal investigation of researcher conduct is required, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution, employer, funder, or other competent authority.

2. Scope

This policy applies to concerns involving submitted manuscripts, manuscripts under peer review, accepted manuscripts, published articles, peer review activities, editorial processes, and other activities directly related to IJASCE.

Concerns may involve authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, journal staff, or other participants in the publication process. Allegations may be raised by readers, authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, research integrity officers, funders, whistleblowers, or other parties.

3. Concerns Covered by This Policy

Research and publication integrity concerns may vary in nature and seriousness. Matters considered under this policy may include, but are not limited to:

• fabrication or falsification of data, results, images, analyses, or other research materials;

• plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or substantial unattributed use of another person's intellectual contribution;

• redundant, duplicate, or misleadingly overlapping publication;

• citation manipulation or inappropriate coercive citation practices;

• undisclosed or inadequately managed competing interests;

• manipulation, fabrication, impersonation, or other compromise of the peer review process;

• inappropriate authorship or contributorship practices, including gift, guest, ghost, or omitted authorship;

• misrepresentation of ethical approval, informed consent, consent for publication, study registration, or other required research oversight;

• unauthorized or unethical use of confidential manuscript or peer review material;

• materially deceptive, prohibited, or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence where such use compromises the integrity, originality, reliability, attribution, or transparency of the scholarly work;

• deliberate misrepresentation of data availability, funding, affiliations, author identity, or other information relevant to the scholarly record;

• serious breaches of the journal's publication ethics policies; and

• other conduct that may materially affect the reliability, attribution, ethical acceptability, or integrity of submitted or published work.

The existence of an allegation does not establish that misconduct has occurred. IJASCE will distinguish allegations, evidence, honest error, differences in scholarly interpretation, and established findings when determining an appropriate editorial response.

4. Reporting Allegations

Concerns should be submitted in writing to the IJASCE editorial office or Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact channel. A report should provide sufficient information to enable the journal to understand and assess the concern.

Where possible, a report should include:

• identification of the manuscript, article, review, or editorial process concerned;

• a clear description of the alleged problem;

• relevant supporting evidence, documents, sources, data, or links;

• an explanation of why the matter may affect research or publication integrity; and

• contact information for the complainant where the complainant is willing to provide it.

IJASCE will consider anonymous allegations when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit meaningful assessment. An allegation will not be dismissed solely because the complainant is anonymous.

Complainants should act in good faith. Knowingly false, malicious, threatening, defamatory, or repeatedly abusive communications may be handled separately from legitimate research integrity concerns. The journal will nevertheless assess any substantive evidence contained in such communications when appropriate.

5. Initial Editorial Assessment

The journal will conduct an initial editorial assessment to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently specific, credible, relevant to IJASCE, and supported by information that warrants further consideration.

The initial assessment may include:

• reviewing the submitted evidence and relevant journal records;

• checking the manuscript, published article, data, images, references, similarity reports, peer review records, or other relevant material;

• determining whether the matter falls within another IJASCE policy;

• determining whether additional information is required from the complainant;

• identifying relevant COPE guidance or flowcharts; and

• determining whether the matter requires communication with authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, another journal, a funder, or another competent body.

A concern may be closed at the initial stage when it is clearly unsupported, outside the journal's remit, already adequately resolved, or unrelated to the integrity of IJASCE's editorial or published record. Where appropriate, the journal may explain this decision to the complainant.

6. Further Editorial Assessment

When a concern warrants further consideration, IJASCE will conduct an impartial and confidential editorial assessment. This process is intended to establish what editorial action, if any, is required. It is not intended to replace a formal institutional investigation of research misconduct.

Depending on the nature of the case, IJASCE may:

• request an explanation or relevant documentation from the person or persons whose work or conduct is questioned;

• contact other authors when their involvement or information is relevant;

• consult reviewers, editors, or independent subject experts when specialist evaluation is necessary;

• request underlying data, images, code, ethical approval documentation, consent documentation, authorship information, or other records relevant to the concern;

• consult applicable COPE guidance and flowcharts;

• communicate with another journal when the same or related concern affects material published or submitted elsewhere and such communication is appropriate under COPE guidance;

• contact an author's institution, employer, research integrity office, funder, or other competent authority when formal investigation or additional evidence is required; or

• seek appropriate independent, ethical, or legal advice in complex cases where necessary.

6.1 Opportunity to Respond

Where appropriate, the person or persons concerned will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before the journal reaches an editorial conclusion.

IJASCE will normally seek a response from those concerned before referring a matter for institutional investigation. However, the journal may contact an institution or other competent authority at the same time as, or before, contacting the individual when circumstances justify doing so, including situations in which there is a substantial risk that evidence could be altered, destroyed, or otherwise compromised.

6.2 Institutional Investigation

IJASCE does not normally determine whether a researcher has committed formal research misconduct. Where allegations require investigation of researcher conduct, access to institutional records, interviews, laboratory records, or other evidence beyond the journal's authority, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution or competent authority.

IJASCE may provide relevant information to an institution when appropriate and may request information about the outcome insofar as it is necessary to determine whether editorial action should be taken.

The journal will not unnecessarily delay action required to protect or correct the scholarly record while awaiting an institutional investigation when sufficient evidence already exists to justify such action.

6.3 Allegations Involving Editors or Editorial Board Members

When an allegation concerns an editor, Editor-in-Chief, or editorial board member, that individual must not control the assessment or decision relating to the concern.

Responsibility should be assigned to another appropriately independent editor, the publisher, or another qualified person who does not have a relevant competing interest. The same standards of fairness, confidentiality, evidence, and due process apply to allegations concerning editorial personnel.

7. Confidentiality and Fairness

IJASCE will handle allegations as confidentially as reasonably possible while allowing necessary assessment, consultation, institutional communication, and correction of the scholarly record.

Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations that reasonably need it for assessment, investigation, decision-making, or correction of the record, subject to applicable legal and ethical requirements.

The identity of a whistleblower or complainant will not be unnecessarily disclosed. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required by law, necessary for a fair assessment, or essential to communication with an institution or other competent authority.

The journal will avoid prejudging allegations and will not characterize an individual as having committed misconduct solely on the basis of an allegation. Editorial communications should distinguish clearly between concerns, allegations, evidence, institutional findings, and established facts.

8. Editorial Outcomes and Actions

Editorial action will depend on the nature of the concern, the available evidence, the stage of publication, and the effect of the issue on the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record.

Possible actions may include:

• taking no further action when the concern is not substantiated;

• requesting clarification, additional documentation, or amendment of a submitted manuscript;

• requesting correction of authorship, declarations, citations, data statements, ethical information, or other manuscript content;

• suspending editorial consideration while a serious concern is being assessed;

• rejecting a manuscript when the evidence demonstrates that it does not meet the journal's standards for integrity, ethics, originality, or reliability;

• reassessing a peer review or editorial decision when the integrity of the review process has been compromised;

• publishing a correction when published content remains substantially reliable but requires amendment;

• publishing an expression of concern when substantial unresolved concerns require readers to be alerted;

• retracting an article when the circumstances satisfy the journal's criteria for retraction under relevant COPE guidance;

• referring a serious concern to the relevant institution, employer, research integrity office, funder, another journal, or competent authority when appropriate; and

• communicating necessary corrections or status changes to relevant indexing, abstracting, DOI, repository, or scholarly infrastructure services when such updates are required to maintain an accurate publication record.

Editorial actions are intended primarily to protect the integrity and accuracy of the scholarly record rather than to punish individuals.

8.1 Restrictions and Sanctions

IJASCE does not apply automatic or permanent author blacklisting as a standard response to allegations or findings of misconduct. Restrictions on participation in journal processes, including future reviewing or editorial assignments, may be considered when necessary to protect the integrity of those processes and must be proportionate to the circumstances.

The journal will exercise particular caution regarding punitive sanctions against authors. Formal disciplinary measures concerning researcher conduct are ordinarily the responsibility of the relevant institution, employer, or competent authority.

9. Post-Publication Action

When a concern affects already published material, IJASCE will determine whether the scholarly record requires amendment. The journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice in accordance with its Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections Policy and relevant COPE guidance.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices will be clearly identified, linked to the affected article, and made openly accessible. Where an article is retracted, the scholarly record will normally be retained and clearly marked as retracted rather than silently removed, except in exceptional circumstances requiring removal for legal, privacy, safety, or other compelling reasons.

10. Responsibilities

Authors must report research accurately, comply with applicable ethical requirements, maintain appropriate supporting records, disclose relevant competing interests and prior publications, and cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries.

Reviewers must report suspected research or publication integrity concerns confidentially to the editor and must not independently contact authors or disclose confidential manuscript information.

Editors are responsible for receiving allegations, conducting or coordinating appropriate editorial assessments, protecting confidentiality, managing competing interests, following applicable COPE guidance, communicating with relevant parties, and determining necessary editorial action.

Institutions and other competent authorities are responsible for formal investigation and disciplinary determinations concerning researcher conduct when those matters fall within their jurisdiction.

Complainants and whistleblowers should raise concerns in good faith and provide sufficiently specific information or evidence whenever possible.

11. Related Policies and References

• COPE Core Practice — Allegations of Misconduct

• COPE Flowcharts and Guidance on Research and Publication Integrity Concerns

• COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases

• COPE Retraction Guidelines

• COPE guidance concerning anonymous whistleblowers and information sharing between journals

• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME

• IJASCE Plagiarism and Text Overlap Policy

• IJASCE Peer Review Process

• IJASCE Conflicts of Interest Policy

• IJASCE Data and Reproducibility Policy

• IJASCE Ethical Oversight Policy

• IJASCE Authorship and Contributorship Policy

• IJASCE Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections Policy

• IJASCE AI Tools Usage Policy

12. Review and Updates

This policy was reviewed in September 2026. IJASCE will review and update the policy periodically in response to changes in COPE guidance, recognized research integrity practices, journal procedures, or relevant legal and ethical requirements.