Allegation of Misconduct

Introduction

NARADIDIK is unequivocally committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record and ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics. This policy outlines our procedures for addressing allegations of research and publication misconduct. We adhere to the Core Practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling all such allegations. Our goal is to ensure a fair, thorough, and transparent process for all parties involved, safeguarding the trustworthiness of the research we publish.

Description

Research and publication misconduct compromises the integrity of research and the scientific record. NARADIDIK defines misconduct in line with established ethical guidelines. This includes, but is not limited to:

Fabrication: Inventing data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This includes self-plagiarism or redundant publication.
Authorship Issues: Inappropriate attribution of authorship, such as gift, ghost, or guest authorship, or denying authorship to individuals who meet authorship criteria.
Citation Manipulation: Practices intended to inflate citation counts or otherwise misrepresent the importance or context of cited works.
Undeclared Conflicts of Interest: Failure by authors, reviewers, or editors to disclose financial or other interests that might inappropriately influence their actions.
Breach of Research Ethics: Violations of established ethical standards for research involving human or animal subjects, or failure to obtain necessary ethical approvals.
Peer Review Manipulation: Subverting the peer review process, for example, by suggesting fraudulent reviewers or attempting to influence reviewer or editorial decisions inappropriately.

Allegations of misconduct can arise at any stage of the publication process (pre-publication or post-publication) or relate to the conduct of research itself. NARADIDIK will investigate allegations regardless of their source, which may include authors, reviewers, editors, readers, or whistleblowers.

Policy

Commitment to Investigate: NARADIDIK will take all allegations of potential misconduct seriously and will investigate them thoroughly and impartially, following COPE guidelines.
Confidentiality: We will strive to maintain confidentiality for all parties involved in an allegation to the greatest extent possible. The identity of whistleblowers will be protected, and information will only be disclosed to those who need to be involved in the investigation process or as required by legal or institutional processes.
Fairness and Objectivity: NARADIDIK is committed to ensuring a fair, objective, and unbiased investigation process for all parties. Accused individuals will be presumed innocent until misconduct is proven and will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to any allegations.
Timeliness: While ensuring thoroughness, NARADIDIK will endeavor to conduct investigations in a timely manner. All parties will be kept informed of the progress and expected timelines where appropriate.
Cooperation: We expect full cooperation from all parties involved in an investigation, including authors, reviewers, and institutional representatives, if applicable.
Handling Whistleblowers: NARADIDIK has clear policies for handling allegations from whistleblowers, ensuring they are treated fairly and protected from retaliation as far as practicably possible within the journal's remit.
Scope: This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to or published in NARADIDIK, and to all individuals involved in the publication process.

Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

Reporting an Allegation:

Allegations of misconduct should be reported directly to the Editor-in-Chief of NARADIDIK. Contact details are available on the journal's website.
The allegation should be made in writing and provide as much specific detail and evidence as possible to support the claim (e.g., manuscript ID, details of the alleged misconduct, relevant documents or data). Anonymous allegations may be considered if they are accompanied by sufficient verifiable evidence.

Initial Assessment:

Upon receipt of an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated ethics committee/officer if established ) will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine if the allegation is credible, specific enough, and falls within the scope of this policy.
If the allegation is deemed not credible or outside the scope, it may be dismissed at this stage, with communication to the complainant where possible.

Investigation Process:

If the initial assessment indicates a credible allegation of misconduct, a formal investigation will be initiated.
The Editor-in-Chief will lead the investigation, potentially forming a small committee of editorial board members or seeking external expert advice if necessary.
Notification to Accused: The accused individual(s) will be notified of the allegation (without revealing the identity of the complainant if requested and appropriate) and provided with the supporting evidence. They will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations in writing.
Evidence Gathering: The investigation will involve a careful examination of all relevant evidence, which may include the manuscript or article in question, raw data, statistical analyses, peer review reports, correspondence between authors and the journal, and any other relevant documentation.
Consultation: For complex cases, NARADIDIK may consult with COPE for advice or seek legal counsel.
Institutional Involvement: If the alleged misconduct relates to the research process or involves serious ethical breaches, NARADIDIK may notify and liaise with the relevant institution(s) of the accused authors or other relevant bodies (e.g., funding agencies), requesting they conduct an investigation according to their internal procedures. NARADIDIK will typically await the outcome of institutional investigations before making a final decision, but may take interim action (e.g., issuing an Expression of Concern) if deemed necessary.

Outcomes and Actions: Based on the findings of the investigation, NARADIDIK will determine the appropriate course of action in line with COPE guidelines. Possible outcomes include:

No Misconduct: If the investigation concludes that the allegation is unfounded, all relevant parties will be informed, and the matter will be closed. NARADIDIK may consider publishing a statement if public accusations were made.
Minor Misconduct: If minor errors or breaches are found (e.g., minor plagiarism, undeclared conflict of interest with no significant impact on findings), actions may include:

Issuing a formal warning or letter of explanation to the author(s).
Requesting authors to correct the manuscript or published article (e.g., by publishing an erratum or corrigendum).

Serious Misconduct: If serious misconduct is confirmed (e.g., fabrication, falsification, major plagiarism, or other breaches that compromise the validity or integrity of the work), actions may include:

Rejection of a submitted manuscript.
Retraction of a published article: A formal retraction notice will be published, clearly stating the reasons for the retraction and linked to the original article. The retraction will be clearly identifiable in indexing services.
Expression of Concern: If the investigation is inconclusive but there are substantial doubts about the integrity or reliability of a published work, NARADIDIK may issue an Expression of Concern.
Notification to Institutions/Bodies: Informing the authors' institution(s), employers, funding bodies, or relevant professional organizations of the findings to enable them to take appropriate action.
Embargo on Future Submissions: NARADIDIK reserves the right to impose an embargo on future submissions from authors found to have committed serious misconduct for a defined period.

Appeals: Authors or other parties who wish to appeal a decision made by NARADIDIK regarding an allegation of misconduct should submit a formal appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, outlining the reasons for the appeal and providing any new evidence. The appeal will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief and potentially the editorial board or an independent advisor.
Record Keeping and Communication:

NARADIDIK will maintain confidential records of all allegations, investigations, and outcomes.
The journal will communicate the outcome of the investigation and any actions taken to the relevant parties (complainant, accused, and institutions as appropriate). Public statements (e.g., retractions, corrections) will be made in the journal for published articles.