TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology, published by the Faculty of Psychology, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta, Indonesia, is committed to upholding research integrity, academic honesty, ethical research practices, editorial independence, and the reliability of the scholarly record.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for receiving, assessing, and addressing allegations of research misconduct involving manuscripts submitted to, under review by, or published in TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology. It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the journal's publication process.

The journal handles allegations in accordance with its publication ethics principles and relevant guidance from recognized organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Every allegation is considered fairly, confidentially, impartially, and on the basis of available evidence.

1. Definition and Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to serious breaches of accepted research and publication ethics that may compromise the originality, accuracy, validity, ethical compliance, or reliability of scholarly work. Allegations may arise before or after publication and may concern research conduct, data management, authorship, reporting, peer review, or other aspects of scholarly communication.

The following practices may constitute research misconduct or serious publication ethics violations when supported by relevant evidence:

• Fabrication. Inventing research participants, questionnaire responses, experimental observations, interview records, datasets, statistical results, or research findings and presenting them as genuine.
• Falsification. Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, analyses, figures, tables, or results in a misleading manner.
• Plagiarism. Presenting another person's words, ideas, theoretical arguments, research methods, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
• Duplicate or redundant publication. Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure or legitimate scholarly justification.
• Citation manipulation. Using fabricated references, irrelevant citations, or inappropriate citation practices to misrepresent scholarly support or artificially influence citation metrics.
• Authorship misconduct. Misrepresenting author contributions, engaging in gift or ghost authorship, purchasing authorship, coercing authorship, or making unauthorized authorship changes.
• Peer-review manipulation. Providing false reviewer identities, fabricated contact details, manipulated recommendations, or other information intended to compromise independent editorial assessment.
• Misrepresentation of research findings. Deliberately concealing material findings, selectively reporting results in a misleading manner, or presenting conclusions that are knowingly inconsistent with the available evidence.
• Research ethics violations. Conducting or reporting research in violation of applicable ethical requirements, including requirements relating to informed consent, participant protection, confidentiality, or ethical approval where required.
• Misconduct involving psychological assessment. Fabricating psychometric results, misrepresenting the validity or reliability of an instrument, or making unsupported claims about psychological measurement and assessment.
• Misuse of generative artificial intelligence. Fabricating data, references, or research evidence using AI tools, misrepresenting AI-generated material, or violating the journal's applicable AI-use and disclosure requirements.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest. Concealing relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests that could materially affect research or editorial judgment.

The journal assesses each concern in context. Methodological weaknesses, statistical disagreements, unintentional mistakes, or differences in theoretical interpretation do not automatically constitute misconduct.

2. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research participants, institutions, and other interested parties may report suspected research misconduct involving a manuscript submitted to or an article published in TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology.

Reports should be submitted in writing through the journal's official website, editorial communication channel, or submission system, as applicable. The report should contain sufficient information to enable a meaningful preliminary assessment.

Where possible, a report should include:

• The title of the manuscript or published article.
• The manuscript identification number, DOI, or permanent article URL, where available.
• A clear description of the suspected misconduct or ethical concern.
• Specific evidence, references, documents, data discrepancies, or other supporting materials.
• Identification of the relevant passages, tables, figures, analyses, or research findings.
• The reporter's contact details, where provided.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. However, anonymity or incomplete documentation may limit the journal's ability to seek clarification or provide updates.

Reports should be made in good faith. The journal distinguishes good-faith concerns that cannot ultimately be substantiated from allegations that are knowingly fabricated or submitted for malicious purposes.

3. Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the journal's responsibilities, contains sufficiently specific information, and warrants further examination.

The preliminary assessment may involve:

• Reviewing the allegation and available supporting evidence.
• Examining the manuscript, published article, editorial correspondence, and relevant submission records.
• Assessing similarity reports, references, statistical results, tables, figures, and supporting research materials where relevant.
• Requesting additional information or clarification from the reporter when reasonably necessary.
• Considering whether specialist advice or referral to an appropriate research institution is necessary.
• Identifying potential conflicts of interest involving editors or other individuals responsible for assessing the matter.

The journal does not presume that an author or other party is responsible for misconduct merely because an allegation has been made. Where substantive concerns require a response, the affected parties should ordinarily be given an appropriate opportunity to explain the circumstances and provide relevant information.

4. Investigation and Institutional Cooperation

When an allegation requires further examination, the editorial team may review relevant evidence, request supporting documentation, seek independent expert advice, or consult an appropriate research institution or ethics body.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the process may include:

1. Evidence review. Examine the allegation, available records, research materials, statistical analyses, and relevant editorial documentation.
2. Clarification. Request explanations or supporting documentation from the relevant authors or parties.
3. Independent assessment. Seek advice from an independent academic, methodological, statistical, or research ethics expert when necessary.
4. Institutional referral. Refer serious concerns to the appropriate institution or responsible authority when formal investigation or verification is required.
5. Editorial determination. Determine appropriate action based on the available evidence, relevant institutional findings where applicable, and the journal's publication ethics policies.

Research institutions are generally responsible for formal investigations into researchers' conduct and institutional disciplinary measures. TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology remains responsible for editorial decisions concerning manuscripts and the reliability of the scholarly record under its control.

The journal may cooperate with relevant institutions by sharing documented concerns, requesting appropriate verification, or considering findings relevant to the publication. Confidential, personal, or legally protected information must be handled responsibly.

The duration of an investigation depends on the complexity of the matter, the availability of evidence, and the need to consult relevant parties. The journal aims to proceed as promptly as reasonably possible without compromising fairness or the quality of the assessment.

5. Allegations Before Publication

When credible concerns arise during submission, editorial screening, peer review, or production, the journal may temporarily suspend manuscript processing while the matter is assessed.

Depending on the findings, possible actions include:

• Requesting clarification, revised material, or supporting documentation.
• Conducting additional originality or research integrity checks.
• Seeking independent methodological or ethical assessment.
• Referring serious concerns to the appropriate institution or authority.
• Rejecting a manuscript when serious violations or fundamental reliability problems are sufficiently established.
• Resuming editorial processing when the concerns have been satisfactorily resolved.

An allegation alone does not automatically justify rejection. Editorial decisions must be based on the evidence, the manuscript's scholarly merit, and the journal's established ethical requirements.

6. Allegations After Publication

When credible allegations concern a published article, the journal assesses whether the identified problems affect its originality, ethical validity, accuracy, interpretation, or reliability.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the findings, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

No Further Action

No formal corrective action may be necessary when the concern is not substantiated or does not materially affect the article's reliability or ethical status.

Correction

A correction may be appropriate when an identifiable error can be amended without invalidating the principal findings or requiring retraction of the article.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be considered when substantial questions remain unresolved and readers need to be informed while further assessment or investigation continues.

Retraction

Retraction may be considered when evidence establishes that an article's findings are materially unreliable or that serious research or publication ethics violations warrant retraction.

Where an editorial action is warranted, the journal aims to publish an appropriate notice identifying the affected article and explaining the reason for the action. The notice should remain linked to the article where the publishing platform permits.

Removal of a published article is reserved for exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, safety, privacy, or confidentiality considerations. Any such action must be handled in accordance with the journal's applicable policies and responsibilities toward the scholarly record.

These decisions should be consistent with the journal's Retraction, Withdrawal, and Correction Policy. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record rather than to serve as a punishment.

7. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

All allegations are handled with due regard for confidentiality, fairness, academic independence, and the legitimate rights of the parties involved.

• Information is shared only with individuals who have a legitimate role in assessing or resolving the matter.
• Authors and other affected parties are ordinarily given an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
• Reporters acting in good faith should be protected from inappropriate retaliation.
• Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must disclose them and must not improperly influence the assessment.
• Personal information, confidential peer-review records, and restricted research data must be protected.
• Unsubstantiated allegations must not be presented as established misconduct.
• Knowingly false allegations may be addressed appropriately, while preserving the right to report genuine concerns in good faith.

Particular care is required when allegations involve sensitive psychological information, clinical or mental health data, identifiable participant records, workplace experiences, or other information that could expose research participants to harm or compromise their privacy.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed absolutely where disclosure is necessary for a fair investigation, an appropriate institutional referral, or compliance with applicable legal obligations.

8. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Authors

• Report research methods, data, analyses, and findings accurately.
• Maintain appropriate supporting research records and documentation.
• Disclose relevant funding, conflicts of interest, and other required declarations.
• Comply with applicable research ethics and participant protection requirements.
• Notify the journal of significant errors discovered after publication and cooperate with appropriate corrective action.
• Respond to reasonable editorial requests for clarification concerning research integrity.

Reviewers

• Report credible concerns about originality, data accuracy, methodology, or publication ethics confidentially to the editor.
• Provide objective, evidence-based assessments.
• Protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished research information.
• Disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained.

Editors

• Assess allegations impartially and on the basis of available evidence.
• Maintain appropriate confidentiality throughout the process.
• Seek independent expertise or institutional assistance when necessary.
• Manage conflicts of interest and avoid prejudging the outcome.
• Determine proportionate editorial action and document relevant decisions.
• Protect the reliability of the scholarly record through appropriate corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when warranted.

9. Record Keeping and Editorial Accountability

The journal maintains appropriate records of reported concerns, relevant correspondence, supporting evidence, assessments, institutional referrals, and editorial decisions, subject to applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements.

Access to these records is restricted to individuals with a legitimate editorial or administrative role. Records are retained as appropriate to support accountability, consistency, and the integrity of the publication process.

The journal may decline to reopen a matter that has already been reasonably assessed unless substantial new evidence or a material procedural concern is presented.

Complaints concerning the fairness or procedure of editorial handling may be considered under the journal's complaints and appeals procedures, where applicable.

10. Related Journal Policies and Resources

This Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy should be read together with the following policies and resources:

• Publication Ethics
• Peer Review Process
• Plagiarism Notice
• Retraction, Withdrawal, and Correction Policy
• Generative AI Policy
• Copyright Notice
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• Official TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology Website

11. Policy Implementation and Review

The editorial team is responsible for implementing this policy consistently and fairly. The policy may be reviewed periodically to reflect developments in research integrity, psychological research ethics, scholarly publishing standards, and relevant guidance from recognized publication ethics organizations.

All parties involved in the publication process are expected to cooperate with reasonable editorial inquiries and comply with the journal's applicable research integrity and publication ethics requirements.