Allegations of Research Misconduct

Policy Statement

Jurnal Indo-Islamika, published by the Graduate School of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia, is committed to maintaining the reliability, authenticity, and integrity of the scholarly record through fair, confidential, and evidence-based procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.

This policy establishes the mechanisms through which concerns regarding suspected misconduct are received, assessed, referred to relevant institutions, and resolved. It applies to manuscripts under editorial consideration and articles already published by the journal.

The policy is informed by the guidelines and recommended practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly concerning allegations of misconduct, editorial accountability, and cooperation between journals and research institutions.

A central principle of this policy is that an allegation does not constitute proof of misconduct. All concerns must be assessed impartially, with appropriate consideration of the available evidence, the rights of the individuals involved, and the potential implications for the scholarly record.

1. Scope of Allegations

Jurnal Indo-Islamika considers allegations involving serious irregularities that may compromise the authenticity, reliability, attribution, or ethical validity of scholarly research.

These concerns may include suspected fabrication or falsification of research evidence, manipulation of the editorial or peer-review process, misrepresentation of documentary sources, deliberate distortion of research findings, or other substantial breaches of research integrity.

Given the journal's interdisciplinary focus on Islamic thought, Muslim societies, and contextualized religious practices, particular attention may be given to concerns involving the authenticity of archival documents, historical sources, interview transcripts, ethnographic evidence, translations, attributed quotations, and the representation of classical Islamic texts.

Disagreements over theological positions, interpretations of religious texts, theoretical perspectives, or legitimate scholarly conclusions do not, by themselves, constitute research misconduct.

Similarly, an unintentional error, methodological limitation, or reasonable difference in scholarly interpretation must be distinguished from deliberate misrepresentation or other serious integrity violations.

Allegations relating specifically to plagiarism, authorship, and artificial intelligence are assessed in conjunction with the journal's respective policies.

2. Submission of Misconduct Allegations

Concerns may be reported by authors, reviewers, editors, research participants, academic institutions, readers, or other individuals who possess relevant information about suspected misconduct.

Reports should be submitted in writing through the journal's official editorial contact channel.

To facilitate an objective preliminary assessment, a report should ordinarily identify the manuscript or article concerned, describe the suspected irregularity, indicate the specific evidence in question, and provide relevant supporting documentation.

Supporting materials may include identifiable passages, bibliographic records, documentary comparisons, correspondence, methodological inconsistencies, or other verifiable information.

Reports should distinguish documented concerns from personal interpretations or unsupported accusations.

Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently specific and credible evidence is provided. The absence of an identified complainant does not automatically invalidate a concern, although it may limit the editorial team's ability to request clarification.

Reporting Channel: Official Editorial Office of Jurnal Indo-Islamika

Contact Page: https://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/indo-islamika/about/contact

Suggested Email Subject: Research Misconduct Allegation – Manuscript ID or Article DOI

3. Preliminary Assessment and Evidence Evaluation

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team should undertake a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and warrants further examination.

The assessment focuses on the specificity and credibility of the allegation, the relevance of the evidence, and the potential consequences for the validity or integrity of the research.

Where necessary, the handling editor may request additional documentation or seek confidential advice from individuals with appropriate expertise.

The journal may also request access to relevant research materials, subject to applicable ethical, legal, privacy, and institutional restrictions.

In textual, historical, or interpretive research, the assessment should consider the provenance of cited documents, the accuracy of attributed statements, the distinction between primary and secondary sources, and the relationship between the evidence and the claims being questioned.

The preliminary assessment is not intended to establish disciplinary responsibility. Its purpose is to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for further editorial examination or referral.

Allegations lacking adequate evidence may be closed without further action, while allowing reconsideration if substantive new information becomes available.

4. Procedures for Handling Suspected Misconduct

When an allegation warrants further examination, the journal should follow a documented and proportionate procedure.

Stage 1- Registration and Initial Review

The editorial office records the concern, identifies the affected manuscript or article, and reviews the supporting evidence.

Stage 2 - Impartial Assessment

An editor without a relevant conflict of interest assesses the concern and determines whether additional expertise or institutional involvement is required.

Stage 3 - Author Clarification

Where appropriate, the corresponding author and other relevant individuals are informed of the specific concerns and invited to provide an explanation and supporting evidence within a reasonable period specified by the editorial office.

Stage 4 - Institutional Referral

When the concern involves potentially serious misconduct requiring formal investigation, the journal may refer the matter to the researcher's institution or another competent authority, together with relevant evidence and subject to confidentiality requirements.

Stage 5 - Editorial Determination

The editorial team evaluates the available information, any institutional findings, and the reliability of the manuscript or published article before determining the appropriate editorial action.

In exceptional circumstances, including a substantial risk of evidence destruction or compromised investigative integrity, institutional consultation may occur before direct communication with the individuals concerned.

The journal may temporarily suspend manuscript processing while significant integrity concerns remain unresolved.

5. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Jurnal Indo-Islamika recognizes the distinction between editorial assessment and formal institutional investigation.

The journal is responsible for evaluating the reliability of submitted and published content and determining appropriate publication-related actions.

Research institutions, meanwhile, are generally responsible for investigating allegations concerning the conduct of their researchers and applying disciplinary measures within their institutional authority.

Where institutional investigation is required, the journal may provide relevant documentary evidence, editorial correspondence, and information necessary to clarify the concerns.

The journal may request updates concerning the status or findings of the investigation when these are relevant to its editorial responsibilities.

Such communication must respect the confidentiality of research participants, complainants, unpublished manuscripts, and other protected information.

Institutional findings should be considered carefully, but editorial decisions concerning the scholarly record remain within the journal's publication responsibilities.

6. Confidentiality, Procedural Fairness, and Protection of Reporting Parties

Allegations must be handled with due regard for fairness, confidentiality, proportionality, and professional responsibility.

The identities of complainants and individuals subject to allegations should be protected from unnecessary disclosure, subject to applicable law and the requirements of a legitimate investigation.

Individuals who report concerns in good faith should not be subjected to inappropriate retaliation or disadvantage because they raised an allegation.

Editors involved in the assessment must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling cases where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Individuals whose work or conduct is questioned should be given an appropriate opportunity to respond before an adverse editorial determination is made, except where immediate protective measures are justified.

Particular care should be exercised when allegations involve vulnerable research participants, confidential interviews, sensitive religious communities, or unpublished institutional records.

Unsubstantiated allegations must not be publicly represented as established facts. A report made in good faith but subsequently found unsupported should not automatically be treated as malicious.

7. Editorial Outcomes and Documentation

The outcome of a misconduct assessment depends on the seriousness of the concern, the credibility of the evidence, the author's response, and any relevant institutional findings.

Possible outcomes include closure of the case when allegations are unsupported, requests for clarification or additional evidence, suspension or rejection of a manuscript, or referral to an appropriate institution.

Where concerns affect an already published article, the editorial team may consider measures to protect the scholarly record in accordance with the journal's established post-publication policies and relevant COPE guidance.

The journal distinguishes findings of misconduct from conclusions that research is unreliable because of an honest error. Editorial action may still be required to protect readers when substantive inaccuracies are identified, even if deliberate misconduct is not established.

The editorial office should maintain confidential records of the concerns received, evidence reviewed, communications undertaken, and decisions reached.

Reporting parties and affected authors may be informed of the outcome to the extent appropriate and consistent with confidentiality obligations.

8. Policy Implementation and Related Documents

This policy provides the procedural framework for responding to research misconduct allegations. It should be implemented alongside, rather than duplicated within, the journal's other publication policies.

The handling of specific ethical violations, publication corrections, and editorial complaints remains governed by the relevant dedicated journal policies.

Related Journal Policies

International Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 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

Jurnal Indo-Islamika seeks to ensure that concerns about research integrity are addressed through credible evidence, impartial editorial assessment, appropriate institutional cooperation, and responsible stewardship of the scholarly record.