Allegations of Research Misconduct

ELEMENTAR : JURNAL PENDIDIKAN DASAR
Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy

Fair, confidential, transparent, and evidence-based procedures for allegations concerning scholarly integrity in primary education research.

SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY TRANSPARENT REVIEW ETHICAL COMPLIANCE
Policy Statement

ELEMENTAR : Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, published by the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training (FITK), UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, is fully committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, authenticity, originality, and reliability across all published studies.

The journal actively recognizes its responsibility to evaluate credible concerns or allegations involving submitted manuscripts or published papers, whether discovered during editorial screening, peer review, production, or post-publication.

Procedures follow established publication ethics and COPE guidelines, maintaining a clear separation between journal editorial actions and formal institutional misconduct investigations.

Fundamental Principle

An allegation does not automatically prove wrongdoing. The journal carefully distinguishes between intentional misconduct, questionable research practices, honest errors, and simple methodological limitations, ensuring fair treatment and proportionate responses.

01ReportingCredible Concern Submission
02AssessmentPreliminary Fair Examination
03Editorial ActionEvidence-Based Resolution
1. Scope of Research Misconduct

Misconduct covers serious breaches of research integrity that compromise scholarly authenticity:

  • Fabrication & Falsification: Inventing or manipulating data, transcripts, or research images.
  • Plagiarism: Unacknowledged use of text, ideas, or data belonging to others.
  • Duplicate Submission: Simultaneous overlapping submissions without full disclosure.
  • Citation / Review Manipulation: Fraudulent references, fake reviewer profiles, or peer-review tampering.
  • Authorship & Ethics Breaches: Ghost/guest authorship or serious participant consent violations.
All suspected breaches trigger formal evaluation protocols.
2. Reporting Allegations

Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers can submit reports in writing directly to the Editorial Office with the following details:

  • Manuscript title, submission ID, or article DOI citation.
  • Clear description of suspected misconduct or unethical practice.
  • Verifiable supporting evidence or source documentation.
  • Contact details of the reporting individual (anonymous reports with strong verifiable evidence are also assessed).
Unsupported or speculative accusations are filtered out.
3. Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial check to determine if the report is credible, relevant, and sufficiently supported.

The assessment measures potential impact on the scholarly record, confidentiality constraints, and whether formal editorial inquiry or institutional referral is required.

Immediate protective measures can be enacted if necessary.
4. Review & Assessment Steps
  • Evaluate Evidence: Cross-check sources and records.
  • Author Explanation: Offer authors a fair chance to respond.
  • Expert Consultation: Seek independent specialist advice.
  • Manage Conflicts: Exclude conflicted editorial members.
  • Document Outcome: Record rationale and final measures.
Ensures rigorous, evidence-based decision making.
5. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Journals and research institutions share complementary duties. While institutions hold formal investigative authority over researcher conduct and sanctions, ELEMENTAR collaborates by sharing relevant evidence, requesting institutional audits, and integrating official findings to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

6. Allegations Before Publication

If allegations emerge during review or production, processing is temporarily suspended:

  • Request author clarifications and raw documents.
  • Consult independent reviewers or ethics advisors.
  • Reject manuscripts outright if severe misconduct is verified.
  • Refer complex cases to the author's home institution.
Protects the review pipeline from compromised submissions.
7. Allegations After Publication

For published articles, actions depend on the severity and impact of the verified issue:

  • Correction: For minor errors that do not alter main conclusions.
  • Expression of Concern: Issued when issues remain unresolved.
  • Retraction: For severe misconduct rendering findings unreliable.
Maintains permanent transparency of the academic record.
8. Research Participant Protection

Special precautions apply to studies involving children, vulnerable groups, or sensitive primary education data. Editors prevent unnecessary disclosure of identifying records or details that could compromise participant privacy, dignity, or safety during investigations.

Prioritizes human dignity and confidentiality standards.
9. Confidentiality & Fairness
  • Strict confidentiality for all reported cases.
  • Protection of good-faith reporters from retaliation.
  • Guaranteed right of reply for accused authors.
  • Avoidance of premature public accusations.
Ensures due process and procedural balance.
10. Stakeholder Responsibilities
  • Authors: Maintain original data records, cooperate with inquiries, and issue swift corrections when errors occur.
  • Reviewers: Keep review details confidential and flag integrity concerns promptly.
  • Editors: Handle claims objectively, consult experts, and safeguard data.
Clear boundaries across all publishing roles.
11. Record-Keeping & Governance

Secure archives of all reports, correspondence, evidence files, and editorial outcomes are maintained securely by the editorial office in compliance with privacy regulations and evolving publishing ethics standards.

Regularly updated to match international publication standards.