Allegation of Research Misconduct

JACOBS takes every allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously and handles it fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the flowcharts and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

What Constitutes Misconduct

  • Fabrication of data or results;
  • Falsification, including manipulation of data, images, or analyses to support a conclusion;
  • Plagiarism in any of its forms;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication, and simultaneous submission to more than one journal;
  • Authorship misconduct, including guest, ghost, and purchased authorship;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Research conducted without required ethical approval or informed consent;
  • Manipulation of peer review, including fake reviewer identities;
  • Citation manipulation;
  • Involvement of paper mills or the sale of manuscripts.

How to Report a Concern

Concerns about a submitted or published article may be sent to the Editor-in-Chief at journal.nalatama@gmail.com. Please include the article title or submission ID, a clear description of the concern, and the supporting evidence (for example, matching sources, data inconsistencies, or images). Reports from anonymous whistleblowers are considered when they contain specific and verifiable evidence. The identity of the complainant is kept confidential.

Investigation Procedure

1. Allegation received
acknowledged within 5 working days
↓
2. Preliminary assessment
Editor-in-Chief and one editor without conflicts of interest review the evidence and its seriousness
↓
Unfounded
case closed; complainant informed
Evidence warrants follow-up
continue to step 3
↓
3. Authors asked to explain
written response requested within 14 days; review or publication is put on hold
↓
Satisfactory explanation
case closed, or minor issue corrected
Unsatisfactory or no response
authors' institution or research integrity office is asked to investigate
↓
4. Decision by the Editor-in-Chief
based on all evidence and any institutional findings
↓
5. Outcome communicated and recorded
notices published and metadata updated where needed

Possible Outcomes

Severity Examples Possible actions
Minor Unintentional citation errors, small undisclosed overlaps, honest errors in reporting Explanation to authors; revision before publication; correction after publication
Moderate Substantial text recycling, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship Rejection of the submission; correction or expression of concern after publication; written warning to authors
Serious Fabrication, falsification, major plagiarism, duplicate publication, paper mill involvement, peer review manipulation Rejection or retraction; notification of the authors' institutions and funders; a ban on submissions by the authors for up to three years

Principles

  • Authors are presumed innocent until the evidence shows otherwise, and are always given the opportunity to respond.
  • Information is shared only with those who need it to resolve the case.
  • The journal aims to complete its preliminary decision within 60 days, although cases that require institutional investigation may take longer.
  • Allegations against editors or reviewers are handled in the same way. Allegations against the Editor-in-Chief are handled by a senior member of the editorial board appointed by the publisher.
  • Deliberately false or malicious allegations may themselves be reported to the complainant's institution.