Allegations of Research Misconduct

1. Policy Statement

Medicra, published by Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo, is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, transparency, and reliability of scholarly publications. The journal upholds the principles of responsible research and ethical academic publishing by ensuring that all allegations of research and publication misconduct are addressed fairly, objectively, confidentially, and consistently.

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to Medicra, articles published in the journal, and the activities of authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the editorial and publication processes.

Medicra follows internationally recognized principles and recommendations established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

All allegations will be assessed according to their nature, seriousness, available evidence, and potential consequences for the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Definition and Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct primarily encompasses fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, as defined by the Office of Research Integrity.

a. Fabrication

Fabrication involves inventing research data, experimental observations, measurements, findings, or results and presenting them as genuine research evidence.

b. Falsification

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, instruments, procedures, images, or data, including selectively modifying or omitting information, so that the research is inaccurately represented.

c. Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves using another person's ideas, research findings, methods, text, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution.

In addition to these primary forms of research misconduct, Medicra considers the following practices potential violations of publication ethics:

  • Duplicate or redundant publication without appropriate disclosure or justification.
  • Simultaneous submission of substantially identical manuscripts to multiple journals.
  • Inappropriate authorship practices, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process, including fraudulent reviewer identities or fabricated review reports.
  • Deliberate citation manipulation intended to distort scholarly recognition or citation metrics.
  • Failure to disclose significant conflicts of interest that may compromise editorial decisions or the interpretation of research.
  • Misrepresentation of ethical approvals, research permissions, or other required documentation.
  • Unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential research data or manuscripts.
  • Misleading or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence where such use compromises research accuracy, transparency, originality, or publication integrity.

These publication ethics concerns will be assessed individually. They are not automatically equivalent to a formal finding of research misconduct.

Honest errors, legitimate scientific disagreements, and differences in interpretation do not, by themselves, constitute research misconduct. Nevertheless, significant errors affecting published findings may require editorial correction regardless of whether misconduct has occurred.

3. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Medicra encourages authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, and other interested parties to report credible concerns regarding suspected research or publication misconduct.

Allegations may concern manuscripts under editorial consideration or articles that have already been published.

Reports should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office through:

Email: medicra@umsida.ac.id

Journal Website: https://medicra.umsida.ac.id/

Reports should provide sufficient information to support an initial assessment, where available, including:

  1. The title, authors, DOI, or manuscript identification number of the work concerned.
  2. A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
  3. Supporting evidence, documents, relevant publications, or other verifiable information.
  4. Contact information for the reporting individual, when disclosure is appropriate.

Medicra may also consider anonymous allegations when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable evidence.

Concerns received through other channels, including public correspondence or online platforms, may be assessed when credible information is available.

The journal does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who report concerns in good faith. An allegation that cannot be substantiated will not automatically be considered malicious.

4. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editorial representative will conduct a preliminary assessment.

The assessment will determine whether:

  • The allegation falls within the scope of the journal's publication ethics responsibilities.
  • Sufficient information is available to identify and examine the concern.
  • The available evidence warrants further editorial inquiry.
  • The matter should be referred to a relevant research institution, publisher, or other competent authority.

The Editorial Office will aim to acknowledge receipt within seven working days and complete the preliminary assessment within 30 calendar days, where reasonably practicable.

Complex cases may require additional time. When appropriate and contact details are available, the reporting individual will be informed that the assessment is continuing.

Allegations lacking sufficient evidence may be closed after preliminary assessment. Cases may be reconsidered if material new evidence becomes available.

5. Investigation and Institutional Cooperation

Where preliminary assessment identifies credible concerns, Medicra will initiate an appropriate editorial inquiry in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

Depending on the circumstances, the editorial inquiry may include:

  • Requesting clarification and supporting documentation from the authors.
  • Reviewing original research data, research protocols, images, supplementary materials, or submission records.
  • Consulting independent subject specialists or publication ethics advisers.
  • Examining similarities between publications and evaluating possible duplication.
  • Reviewing the integrity of the peer-review process.
  • Communicating with relevant research institutions, funding organizations, or other journals when necessary.

Individuals against whom allegations are made will ordinarily be informed of the concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Authors will normally be allowed 14 calendar days to provide an initial response, subject to extension when justified.

In circumstances involving a substantial risk of evidence being altered or destroyed, the journal may contact the relevant institution before notifying the individuals concerned.

The journal's editorial inquiry is distinct from a formal institutional investigation. The responsibility for investigating researchers' conduct and determining institutional disciplinary measures rests primarily with their research institutions or other competent authorities.

Medicra will cooperate with such investigations and provide relevant information when appropriate and legally permissible.

6. Confidentiality, Impartiality, and Protection of Individuals

Medicra is committed to ensuring that all allegations are handled with fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for the rights of the individuals involved.

Information relating to an allegation will be shared only with individuals or institutions whose participation is reasonably necessary for the assessment or resolution of the case.

The identity of an individual reporting a concern will be protected as far as reasonably possible, subject to applicable legal requirements and the need for a fair process.

Editors, reviewers, or other persons with relevant conflicts of interest must not participate in decisions concerning the allegation.

Where an allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief or an individual responsible for handling the case, the matter must be referred to an independent representative designated by the publisher, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo.

No finding of misconduct will be presumed solely from the existence of an allegation.

7. Handling Misconduct Before Publication

Where potential misconduct is identified during manuscript submission, screening, or peer review, Medicra may temporarily suspend editorial processing while the concern is examined.

The Editor-in-Chief may request additional evidence, clarification, corrected materials, or an institutional assessment.

Following the editorial inquiry, the journal may:

  • Continue manuscript processing when concerns have been satisfactorily resolved.
  • Request revisions or correction of identified problems.
  • Reject the manuscript when substantial ethical violations or unresolved integrity concerns undermine its suitability for publication.
  • Refer serious or unresolved concerns to the authors' institutions or other appropriate authorities.

Editorial decisions will be based on the available evidence and the seriousness of the concern rather than unsupported accusations.

8. Handling Misconduct After Publication

Medicra recognizes that publication ethics responsibilities continue after an article has been published.

When credible concerns are raised regarding a published article, the journal will examine the available information and determine whether action is necessary to protect readers and maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Depending on the findings and the reliability of the published work, editorial measures may include:

a. Correction

A correction may be published when identifiable errors require amendment but do not invalidate the article's main findings or conclusions.

b. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when substantial questions regarding the integrity or reliability of an article remain unresolved, especially when an investigation is ongoing or its outcome is inconclusive.

c. Retraction

A retraction may be issued when reliable evidence demonstrates that the findings are substantially unreliable or when serious ethical violations undermine the integrity of the publication.

Retractions may be warranted because of research misconduct or significant honest errors. A formal finding of misconduct is not always required to correct the published record.

d. Editorial Clarification

An editorial clarification or other appropriate notice may be issued when additional information is necessary to prevent misunderstanding or provide transparency regarding the publication.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices will be clearly identified, publicly accessible, and linked to the original publication. Relevant article metadata will be updated where technically supported.

Retracted articles will normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record, with a prominent retraction notice explaining the reason for the editorial action.

9. Editorial Decisions and Follow-Up Actions

Final editorial decisions concerning manuscript publication, correction, expressions of concern, and retraction will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent authorized representative when a conflict of interest exists.

Decisions will consider:

  • The credibility and sufficiency of the available evidence.
  • The seriousness and consequences of the identified problems.
  • Responses provided by the individuals concerned.
  • Relevant institutional findings, where available.
  • The extent to which the reliability or interpretation of published findings is affected.
  • Applicable publication ethics principles and COPE guidance.

Where necessary, the journal may communicate its findings to relevant institutions, research funders, or other publishers.

Medicra will document the assessment process, relevant correspondence, supporting evidence, and editorial decisions in a secure manner.

Case records will be retained in accordance with applicable institutional record-management and privacy requirements.

10. Appeals and Policy Review

Individuals directly affected by an editorial decision relating to alleged misconduct may submit a reasoned appeal supported by relevant evidence.

Appeals should be submitted to the Editorial Office and will be assessed by an editor or publisher representative who has no material conflict of interest. Where practicable, the appeal should be reviewed by an individual who was not responsible for the original decision.

An appeal will be considered when substantial new evidence, significant procedural concerns, or a potentially material error in the original assessment is identified.

Medicra is committed to periodically reviewing this policy to maintain consistency with developments in research integrity, publication ethics, and internationally recognized editorial standards.

References and International Guidelines

This policy has been developed with reference to the following international publications and guidelines:

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2024). Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases. Version 2, March 2024.
    https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.3

  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2023). Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research. COPE Discussion Document.
    https://doi.org/10.24318/9cdeTy2t

  3. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines.
    https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

  4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Scientific Misconduct.
    https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/scientific-misconduct-expressions-of-concern-and-retraction.html

  5. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Definition of Research Misconduct.
    https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct

  6. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing.
    https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/

Publisher: Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo
Journal: Medicra
Website: https://medicra.umsida.ac.id/
Editorial Contact: medicra@umsida.ac.id