Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy

1. Definition and Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct and related publication-integrity violations involve serious departures from accepted standards of scholarly conduct that compromise originality, evidence, ethical compliance, or the reliability of published findings.

MPR considers the following practices unacceptable:

  • Fabrication: Inventing research participants, survey responses, interview transcripts, government records, diplomatic documents, datasets, or research findings.
  • Falsification: Manipulating statistical results, coding procedures, policy evidence, documentary sources, or analytical findings in misleading ways.
  • Plagiarism: Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, theoretical arguments, or intellectual contributions without proper acknowledgment.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication: Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure or scholarly justification.
  • Citation manipulation: Using fabricated references or inappropriate citations to distort evidence or influence citation metrics.
  • Peer-review manipulation: Using fraudulent reviewer identities, fabricated accounts, or other methods intended to compromise independent review.
  • Authorship manipulation: Guest, ghost, purchased, honorary, coercive, or unauthorized authorship practices.
  • Selective reporting: Deliberately concealing relevant findings or misrepresenting evidence, analytical limitations, or policy outcomes.
  • Unethical research: Conducting or reporting research without required consent, ethical approval, lawful access, or necessary protection of participants.
  • Misuse of generative AI: Fabricating data, citations, documents, or research evidence; submitting prohibited AI-generated scholarly content; or violating the journal's AI disclosure requirements.
Disciplinary Relevance: Particular attention is given to the authenticity, validity, and provenance of standardized language assessment metrics, classroom interaction transcripts, curriculum and textbook evaluation documents, learner language corpora, institutional instructional records, and other empirical or textual evidence used in Muslim Politics.

2. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, research participants, and other relevant stakeholders may report suspected misconduct involving research submitted to or published in MPR.

Allegations must be submitted in writing through the journal's official editorial correspondence channel. Reports should provide sufficient information to allow a meaningful preliminary assessment.

Recommended Information
  • Article title, manuscript identification number, DOI, or publication URL.
  • A clear description of the suspected violation.
  • Specific evidence, sources, records, or supporting documentation.
  • Identification of the affected data, passages, figures, or research findings.
  • Reporter contact information, where available.
Official Reporting Channel

Email: journal@uiii.ac.id

Suggested Subject: Allegation of Research Misconduct – Manuscript ID / Article DOI

Anonymous concerns may be considered when credible and sufficiently detailed evidence is provided. However, anonymity or incomplete information may limit further clarification and communication.

3. Preliminary Assessment and Clarification

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether an allegation is credible, relevant, sufficiently documented, and within the journal's editorial responsibilities.

The assessment may involve:

  • Reviewing the allegation and available supporting evidence.
  • Checking editorial records, similarity reports, and relevant research materials.
  • Requesting clarification or additional documentation from the complainant.
  • Inviting the author or relevant party to provide an explanation.
  • Identifying conflicts of interest requiring independent handling.
  • Determining whether specialist or institutional assessment is necessary.
Presumption of Fairness: The journal does not presume guilt before the evidence has been assessed. Authors and other affected parties should ordinarily receive an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.

4. Editorial Examination and Institutional Cooperation

When an allegation requires further examination, the Editorial Team may consult independent experts and review relevant documents to determine its possible implications for the manuscript or published article.

The journal follows a proportionate process:

Step 1 — Evidence Review
Examine the available records, sources, research materials, and editorial correspondence.
Step 2 — Author Clarification
Request explanations or supporting documentation from the relevant authors or parties.
Step 3 — Independent Assessment
Consult an independent academic, methodological, or ethical expert when appropriate.
Step 4 — Institutional Referral
Refer suspected serious misconduct to an appropriate research institution or responsible authority where formal investigation is needed.
Step 5 — Editorial Decision
Determine necessary action on the basis of available evidence, institutional findings where relevant, and applicable publication-ethics standards.

Research institutions are generally responsible for formal investigations into researchers' conduct and any institutional disciplinary measures. The journal remains responsible for editorial decisions and the integrity of the research it publishes.

Cooperation with relevant institutions may include sharing documented concerns, requesting appropriate verification, and considering institutional findings. Confidential or legally protected information must be handled responsibly.

5. Allegations Before Publication

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

Depending on the evidence, possible actions include:

  • Requesting clarification, revised material, or supporting documentation.
  • Conducting further originality or research-integrity checks.
  • Seeking independent expert evaluation.
  • Referring serious concerns to the relevant institution.
  • Rejecting a manuscript where serious violations or fundamental reliability problems are sufficiently established.
  • Resuming editorial processing when concerns have been satisfactorily resolved.

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

6. Allegations After Publication

When credible allegations concern published articles, MPR evaluates whether the identified problems affect the reliability, originality, ethical validity, or interpretation of the research.

Appropriate responses may include:

No Corrective Action Where the concern is not substantiated or does not materially affect the article.
Correction Where an identifiable error can be corrected without invalidating the principal findings.
Expression of Concern Where serious unresolved concerns warrant informing readers while further assessment continues.
Retraction Where research is materially unreliable or serious substantiated violations justify retracting the article.

Formal notices should identify the affected article, state the reason for the action, and remain linked to the scholarly record. Article removal is considered only in exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, safety, privacy, or confidentiality concerns.

These actions are governed by MPR's Retraction, Withdrawal and Correction (R-W-C) Policy. Retraction is intended to protect scholarly integrity rather than to punish authors.

7. Confidentiality, Fair Treatment and Protection

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

  • Information is disclosed only to individuals with a legitimate role in assessing the matter.
  • Reporting individuals acting in good faith should be protected from inappropriate retaliation.
  • Authors and other affected parties should have an appropriate opportunity to respond.
  • Editors with relevant conflicts of interest 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.
  • Deliberately false allegations should be distinguished from good-faith reports that cannot be substantiated.
Sensitive Research Information:  Particular care is required for internal institution administrative records, confidential institutional assessment data, private scholarly correspondence, and information concerning research participants exposed to institutional, cultural, or personal risks, educators sharing critical institutional evaluations, or community informants navigating sensitive contexts.

8. Responsibilities, Records and Editorial Accountability

All parties involved in scholarly publishing share responsibility for preventing, identifying, and addressing research-integrity concerns.

  • Authors must report their research accurately, preserve appropriate supporting records, disclose material errors, and cooperate with reasonable editorial inquiries.
  • Reviewers must report credible concerns confidentially, provide objective assessments, and protect unpublished research information.
  • Editors must assess allegations impartially, seek independent or institutional assistance when necessary, manage conflicts of interest, and take proportionate editorial action.
  • The Editorial Office should maintain appropriate confidential records of allegations, correspondence, evidence, assessments, institutional referrals, and editorial decisions.

Complaints about the fairness or procedure of editorial handling may be considered under the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Records must be accessed and retained in accordance with applicable confidentiality, institutional, and legal requirements.