Allegation of Research Misconduct

Allegation of Research Misconduct

The Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Science, and Innovation takes allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles them in line with the principles and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy applies to submitted manuscripts, accepted manuscripts, and published articles.

1. What Counts as Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data, images, or results;
  • plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and unattributed use of the ideas, text, data, or figures of others;
  • duplicate, redundant, or simultaneous submission or publication;
  • authorship misconduct, such as ghost, guest, or gift authorship, and adding or removing authors without consent;
  • fabricated or deliberately misleading references and citations;
  • undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative AI that breaches the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy;
  • unethical research conduct, such as missing required approvals or consent; and
  • manipulation of the peer-review process, including fake reviewers and citation manipulation.

2. How to Report an Allegation

Anyone, including readers, authors, reviewers, and editors, may report a concern by writing to the Editorial Office at [email protected]. A report should include the title and details of the article or manuscript concerned, a description of the concern, and the supporting evidence. Anonymous reports are considered when they are specific and supported by verifiable evidence. The identity of the person reporting is kept confidential unless disclosure is required by law or by an investigation.

3. Handling of Allegations

  1. Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the report to decide whether it is credible and falls within this policy. Editors involved in the manuscript or with a conflict of interest do not take part in the assessment.
  2. Request for explanation. The corresponding author is informed of the concern and asked to respond with an explanation and, where relevant, the original data or documents. All authors are treated fairly, and no conclusion is drawn before the authors have had the opportunity to respond.
  3. Investigation. Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief consults the editorial board, independent experts, or reviewers, and may use similarity-checking or other technical tools.
  4. Institutional involvement. If the explanation is unsatisfactory or the concern is serious, the journal may ask the authors' institution, funder, or relevant authority to investigate. The journal may not be able to reach a final decision until that process is complete.
  5. Decision. The decision and its reasons are recorded by the Editorial Office.

4. Possible Outcomes

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the case, the journal may:

  • take no action when the allegation is not supported;
  • reject a manuscript under review or withdraw an accepted manuscript from publication;
  • publish a correction (erratum) or an expression of concern for a published article;
  • retract a published article in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism and Retraction Policy;
  • notify the authors' institution or funder; and
  • decline future submissions from the authors concerned for a period decided by the Editorial Board.

5. Confidentiality and Good Faith

Investigations are handled confidentially, and information is shared only with those who need it to reach a decision. Reports must be made in good faith. Knowingly false or malicious allegations are themselves a breach of publication ethics and may be acted upon.