JOURNAL POLICY   /   PUBLICATION INTEGRITY

Research Misconduct Policy

A fair, evidence-based process for receiving, examining, and responding to research integrity concerns.

APLIKATIF  —  Journal of Research Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities

OUR COMMITMENT

APLIKATIF: Journal of Research Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities takes credible concerns about research and publication integrity seriously, whether they relate to a manuscript under consideration or an article already published. This policy explains how concerns are reported, assessed, escalated when appropriate, and resolved.

The journal distinguishes an allegation from an established finding. Editorial procedures are guided by fairness, proportionality, confidentiality, and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal assesses the reliability of material within its publication record; it does not replace a research institution or competent authority in determining formal research misconduct.

01   /   WHAT MAY BE REPORTED

Scope of Concerns

Concerns may involve fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, substantial undisclosed overlap or duplicate publication, manipulated images or analyses, unethical research practices, manipulated peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misappropriation of material, or misleading authorship information.

Good-faith methodological criticism or disagreement over interpretation is not necessarily misconduct. Such comments may be considered under the journal’s post-publication discussion procedures.

02   /   REPORTING CHANNEL

Submitting an Allegation

A concern may be submitted by an author, reviewer, reader, institution, or other informed person to jurnalaplikatif@gmail.com with the email subject Research Integrity Concern – [Article Title or Manuscript ID].

• Identify the manuscript or article, preferably with its title, DOI or URL, and manuscript ID when available.
• Describe the specific concern and provide verifiable evidence, relevant files, citations, or a clear explanation of where the evidence can be found.
• Provide a contact address for follow-up when possible; anonymous reports may be considered if they contain sufficiently specific, verifiable evidence.
• Disclose any relevant personal or professional interests that could affect the complaint.

The journal will take reasonable steps to protect the identity of a person reporting a concern in good faith, while recognizing that information may need to be shared with relevant parties or institutions to examine the matter fairly.

03   /   INITIAL SCREENING

Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an unconflicted designated editor will record the concern, identify the material involved, preserve relevant correspondence, and assess whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and credible to warrant inquiry.

The editor may compare documents, review similarity reports, request clarification, or consult an independent subject expert. An unsupported or clearly unrelated allegation may be closed with the reasons recorded. An inconclusive allegation is not treated as proof of misconduct.

04   /   RIGHT TO RESPOND

Author or Respondent Explanation

If a concern warrants further inquiry, the editor will normally contact the corresponding author or other person concerned, describe the specific issues without prejudging the outcome, and request an explanation and appropriate supporting material.

The respondent will be given a reasonable deadline, normally 14 calendar days, with extensions considered for justified reasons. Where the matter materially concerns several co-authors, the editor may contact all relevant authors. A lack of response will not by itself establish misconduct, but the journal may proceed using available evidence.

05   /   FURTHER INQUIRY

Independent Advice and Institutional Referral

When specialist judgment is needed, the editor may seek confidential advice from independent experts. If serious fabrication, falsification, ethical noncompliance, or other matters requiring institutional authority are suspected, the editor may refer the evidence to the relevant research institution, funder, or appropriate body and request an investigation.

The journal may place a submission on hold while important questions remain unresolved. For published work, an Expression of Concern may be considered if the uncertainty is significant and a conclusion is not available within a reasonable period. The journal will consider institutional findings but retains responsibility for editorial decisions about its own publication record.

06   /   OUTCOMES

Editorial Decisions and Follow-Up

For an unpublished manuscript, an outcome may include no further action, a request for explanation or revision, additional peer review, rejection, or referral to the institution concerned.

For a published article, an outcome may include no change, a formal correction, an Expression of Concern, or retraction where justified by the evidence. These actions are governed by the journal’s Correction and Retraction Policy. The person raising the concern may be informed of the outcome to the extent consistent with confidentiality and privacy.

The editorial team will maintain a confidential record of the complaint, evidence, correspondence, conflicts of interest, advice received, rationale, and final action.

07   /   FAIRNESS AND REVIEW

Confidentiality, Timing, and Reconsideration

The journal aims to acknowledge a sufficiently identifiable report within seven working days. Investigation times vary with complexity and the cooperation of other parties. The editor will communicate material delays when appropriate.

A person directly affected by a decision may request reconsideration by submitting specific grounds and new or overlooked evidence to the journal. Reconsideration will be handled by an editor who was not involved in the disputed decision whenever reasonably possible.

Criticism and concerns submitted in good faith will not be dismissed merely because they challenge a published conclusion. The journal will not publish unverified accusations or confidential investigative material as part of an ordinary discussion.

EDITORIAL WORKFLOW

From report to resolution

1. Receive and record a documented concern
2. Screen evidence and assess potential conflicts
3. Seek an explanation and, if needed, independent advice
4. Refer serious integrity questions to appropriate institutions
5. Make and record the editorial decision; update the published record if needed

EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Report a research integrity concern

Include the article title or manuscript ID, a description of the concern, and supporting evidence. Allegations are reviewed confidentially and without a presumption of wrongdoing.

Contact the Editorial Office →

jurnalaplikatif@gmail.com

RELATED GUIDANCE & POLICIES

COPE — Principles of Transparency  •  COPE — Ethics Toolkit  •  APLIKATIF — Publication Ethics  •  APLIKATIF — Plagiarism Policy

APLIKATIF   |   Publisher: Lembaga Riset dan Inovasi Masyarakat Madani