Allegations of Misconduct
EduSphere: Journal of Multidisciplinary Education Research takes every credible allegation of research and publication misconduct seriously. The journal evaluates reported concerns fairly, confidentially, consistently, and proportionately while protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.
Every Credible Concern Deserves Appropriate Review
Allegations may relate to submitted manuscripts, published articles, peer review activities, editorial conduct, authorship, research data, citations, or other aspects of scholarly publication. Reports should contain specific information and supporting evidence whenever possible.
Protecting the Scholarly Record
This policy provides a structured procedure for receiving, assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of misconduct. Its primary purpose is to determine whether editorial action is required to protect the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of the journal's publication record.
The journal does not replace the authority of universities, research institutions, employers, funding agencies, ethics committees, or legal authorities. When appropriate, the journal may refer relevant concerns to an authorized institution for further investigation.
Forms of Misconduct Covered
Allegations may involve authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, journal staff, or other participants in the publication process.
Plagiarism
Using another person's words, ideas, data, images, arguments, or work without appropriate acknowledgment or permission.
Data Fabrication
Creating research data, observations, participants, findings, or records that did not exist.
Data Falsification
Manipulating research materials, methods, images, analysis, or data in a way that produces a misleading research record.
Duplicate Publication
Publishing or submitting substantially similar work more than once without proper disclosure, citation, or editorial approval.
Authorship Misconduct
Including individuals without genuine contributions, excluding qualified contributors, or providing false authorship information.
Peer Review Manipulation
Providing false reviewer identities, interfering with reviewer selection, or attempting to influence the review process improperly.
Citation Manipulation
Adding irrelevant or unnecessary citations primarily to increase citation counts or influence publication metrics.
Undisclosed Conflicts
Failing to disclose financial, personal, professional, institutional, or academic interests that may affect judgment.
Ethical Approval Violations
Conducting or reporting research without required ethical approval, informed consent, privacy protection, or participant safeguards.
Confidentiality Breach
Sharing, using, or disclosing confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, personal data, or editorial information without authorization.
AI-Related Misconduct
Concealing material AI use, submitting fabricated AI-generated references, or using AI tools in ways that violate confidentiality.
Editorial Misconduct
Misusing editorial authority, suppressing legitimate concerns, unfairly influencing decisions, or using unpublished material improperly.
How to Report a Concern
A person who suspects misconduct should submit the concern to the editorial office. The report should be specific, factual, respectful, and supported by relevant evidence.
Identify the Publication
Provide the manuscript title, article title, author names, URL, DOI, submission number, or other identifying information.
Explain the Concern
Describe the suspected misconduct clearly and identify the relevant content, action, or publication stage.
Provide Evidence
Attach documents, data comparisons, screenshots, references, or other materials that support the allegation.
Provide Contact Details
Include valid contact information so the journal can request clarification or provide an update when appropriate.
Reports Without Disclosed Identity
The journal may consider an anonymous report when it contains specific, verifiable, and credible evidence. However, anonymous reporting may limit the journal's ability to request clarification, verify evidence, or communicate the investigation outcome.
Anonymous allegations based only on speculation, personal opinion, or unsupported accusations may not provide a sufficient basis for further action.
Standards Applied During Review
The journal applies the following principles when handling allegations.
Presumption of Good Faith
An allegation is treated as a concern requiring assessment, not as automatic proof that misconduct occurred.
Confidentiality
Information is shared only with individuals who need it to assess, investigate, or resolve the concern.
Impartiality
Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must not control the assessment or decision.
Right to Respond
The person concerned should receive an appropriate opportunity to explain the matter and provide supporting information.
Evidence-Based Review
Decisions are based on available documents, explanations, publication records, and other relevant evidence.
Proportional Response
Editorial action should reflect the seriousness, reliability, and effect of the identified problem.
How Allegations Are Handled
The exact procedure may vary according to the nature and complexity of the allegation.
Receipt and Documentation
The editorial office records the report, supporting evidence, relevant publication details, and available contact information.
Preliminary Assessment
The editor evaluates whether the allegation is specific, relevant, credible, and supported by enough information to justify further review.
Conflict of Interest Check
The journal identifies whether any editor or investigator has a relationship that could compromise impartial handling of the case.
Request for Explanation
The corresponding author or other relevant party may receive a description of the concern and a request for an explanation, documents, data, or original records.
Evidence Review
The editor evaluates the allegation, response, manuscript history, research records, reviewer reports, and other relevant evidence.
External Consultation
The journal may consult independent experts, editorial board members, research institutions, ethics committees, funders, or other authorized bodies when necessary.
Editorial Decision
The journal determines whether the allegation is unsupported, unresolved, partially substantiated, or substantiated and identifies an appropriate response.
Action and Documentation
The decision, supporting reasons, correspondence, and editorial actions are documented according to the journal's record-management procedures.
Possible Actions Following Review
One or more actions may be taken depending on the available evidence and the effect of the concern on the publication record.
No Further Action
The case may be closed when the allegation is unsupported or does not indicate a publication ethics problem.
Request for Clarification
The author or another party may be required to provide additional information, data, documents, or corrections.
Manuscript Rejection
A manuscript under review may be rejected when serious ethical or integrity concerns are substantiated.
Review Termination
The editorial process may be stopped while a serious concern remains unresolved or requires institutional investigation.
Correction
A correction may be published when an identifiable error affects the article but does not invalidate its central findings.
Expression of Concern
A temporary notice may be issued when a serious concern remains under investigation and the findings are not yet conclusive.
Retraction
A published article may be retracted when its findings are unreliable or serious misconduct substantially affects the publication.
Institutional Referral
Relevant information may be referred to an institution or authority capable of conducting a formal investigation.
Submitted Manuscripts
When an allegation concerns a manuscript that has not yet been published, the journal may temporarily suspend peer review or editorial processing while the concern is assessed.
- Editorial review may be paused.
- Authors may be asked to provide original records.
- Reviewers may be replaced if a conflict exists.
- The manuscript may be rejected or withdrawn from consideration.
Published Articles
When an allegation concerns a published article, the journal assesses whether the reliability, interpretation, attribution, ethics, or validity of the publication record has been affected.
- A correction or clarification may be published.
- An expression of concern may be issued.
- The article may be retracted when justified.
- Editorial notices should remain linked to the original article.
Coordination with Relevant Institutions
Some allegations require access to research records, participant data, laboratory materials, institutional systems, or employment information that the journal cannot independently examine. In these situations, the journal may contact the author's institution, ethics committee, funder, employer, or another authorized body.
The journal may consider reliable institutional findings when deciding whether a manuscript or published article requires editorial action. Institutional silence or delay does not automatically prevent the journal from acting when sufficient publication-related evidence is available.
Confidentiality and Protection of Parties
Limited Disclosure
Case information is shared only with people who need it for a fair assessment or investigation.
Identity Protection
The reporter's identity is protected as far as reasonably possible, subject to due process and applicable requirements.
Respectful Communication
All parties must communicate professionally and avoid intimidation, threats, retaliation, harassment, or defamatory statements.
Record Protection
Reports, responses, evidence, decisions, and editorial notices are retained securely according to journal procedures.
Malicious or Unsupported Allegations
The journal distinguishes good-faith reporting from deliberately false, malicious, abusive, repetitive, or misleading allegations. A person should not submit an allegation to intimidate an author, influence an editorial decision, damage a reputation, or continue a personal dispute.
Reports lacking sufficient information may be closed unless additional reliable evidence becomes available. This does not prevent a reporter from submitting a revised report supported by relevant documentation.
Appeals and Requests for Reconsideration
A party directly affected by an editorial misconduct decision may request reconsideration when new evidence becomes available or when a material procedural or factual error may have affected the outcome.
- The request must identify the decision being challenged.
- It must explain the material error or present new evidence.
- Repetition of previous arguments alone may not justify a new review.
- The appeal should be reviewed by an editor who was not materially conflicted in the original decision.
- The final editorial decision will be communicated with appropriate reasons.
