Research Missconduct

Applied Information System and Management (AISM) takes every allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether it concerns a submitted manuscript or a published article, and whether it involves authors, reviewers, editors, or the publisher. This policy defines misconduct and sets out how allegations are reported, investigated, and resolved. It follows the COPE Core Practices and flowcharts and the accreditation standards for scientific journals in Indonesia.

What Counts as Misconduct

Fabrication Making up data, results, records, or information.
Falsification Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, images, or results, or omitting data, so that the research is not accurately represented.
Plagiarism Using all or part of another person's work, words, ideas, data, code, or figures without proper attribution; rewriting another person's work without using one's own words even when the source is cited; or reusing one's own published work without citation (self-plagiarism). See the Plagiarism Policy.
Unauthorized authorship Gift, ghost, purchased, or fictitious authorship, or listing a person without consent. See Authorship Criteria.
Undisclosed conflict of interest Producing work intended to benefit or harm a particular party, or failing to disclose a relevant interest. See Conflict of Interest.
Multiple submission and duplicate publication Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, or publishing substantially the same work more than once.
Citation and metadata manipulation Excessive or coercive self-citation, citation exchanges between authors or journals, or manipulating metadata or publication dates.
Peer review manipulation Suggesting fake reviewers, reviewing one's own work, or otherwise interfering with the review process.
Misuse of artificial intelligence Undisclosed use of AI, AI-generated or altered images or data, or AI-fabricated references. See the Generative AI Policy.
Research ethics violations Research involving human participants or animals without the required ethics approval or informed consent, or breaches of participants' privacy.

Honest errors and differences of opinion are not misconduct. A similarity percentage alone does not prove plagiarism; it is established when the similarity is significant or a large block of text corresponds to a specific source and is not a properly marked quotation.

How to Report a Concern

Anyone, including readers, authors, reviewers, and editors, may report a concern by writing to the Editor in Chief at aism.journal@apps.uinjkt.ac.id with the subject line "Ethics". A report should include:

  • the title, authors, and DOI or submission ID of the article or manuscript;
  • a clear description of the concern; and
  • any supporting evidence, such as the original source, data, images, or correspondence.

Reports are handled confidentially, and the identity of the person reporting is protected. Anonymous reports are considered if they contain specific and verifiable evidence. Reports that are clearly made in bad faith may be dismissed.

Investigation Procedure

1Examination of initial evidence
The Editor in Chief, or an editor without a conflict of interest, acknowledges the report within 7days and checks whether the concern is supported by evidence, using tools such as similarity checking where appropriate.
2Clarification
The authors, or other persons concerned, are informed of the concern and given an opportunity to explain, usually within 14 days. Review of the manuscript may be paused during this time.
3Investigation
If the explanation is not satisfactory, the journal investigates further and may consult reviewers, independent experts, other journals, and the authors' institutions. Where the journal cannot establish the facts, it asks the institution to investigate.
4Decision
The Editor in Chief decides on the outcome based on the evidence. Where a member of the editorial team is involved, the decision is made by editors without a conflict of interest, and the publisher may be consulted.
5Corrective action
The decided action is carried out and recorded, the people concerned are informed, and public notices are issued where required.

Every step is documented in the journal's records. The journal aims to complete the process within three months, but complex cases, especially those requiring an institutional investigation, may take longer.

Possible Outcomes

Before publication:

  • no action, if the concern is unfounded;
  • a request to revise and correctly cite the sources, for minor cases;
  • rejection of the manuscript, and withdrawal from the review process;
  • informing the authors' institutions; and
  • a ban on submitting to AISM for a period decided by the Editor in Chief, for severe or repeated misconduct.

After publication:

Correction An erratum (publisher error) or corrigendum (author error) when part of an otherwise reliable article is misleading and the main findings or conclusions remain valid. See Erratum and Corrigendum.
Expression of concern Issued when the evidence is inconclusive, or while an institutional investigation is under way.
Retraction When misconduct or serious error makes the data, findings, or conclusions unreliable, or in cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research. See Retraction and Withdrawal.

Public Notices

  • Every correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice is openly available, identifies the article, the type of action, the reason, and who decided it, and is linked to the original article.
  • The article's DOI record and metadata are updated to show the notice.
  • Retracted articles are not deleted from the website or archive. They remain available but are clearly marked as retracted on the article page, in the full-text PDF, and in the metadata.
  • AISM does not remove articles without public notice and does not hide, delay, or ignore confirmed misconduct.

Self-Correction

Authors who discover a significant error in their own work are encouraged to inform the editor promptly. Timely, voluntary, and transparent correction is taken into account in deciding the outcome, but does not excuse systematic or repeated misconduct.

Misconduct by Editors, Reviewers, or the Publisher

Concerns about the conduct of an editor or reviewer are handled by the Editor in Chief. Concerns about the Editor in Chief are handled by the publisher, the Head of the Department of Information Systems, together with other senior members of the editorial team. Reviewers or editors found to have committed misconduct are removed from the journal.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision once, within 30 days, by writing to the Editor in Chief with new evidence or arguments. The appeal is assessed by editors who were not involved in the original decision, and the outcome of the appeal is final.