Allegations of Research Misconduct
Allegations of Research
Misconduct
Transparent procedures for reporting, assessing, investigating, and resolving concerns about research and publication misconduct.
Research Misconduct Policy Statement
The Journal of Computer Science Artificial Intelligence and Communications (JOCSAIC), published by CV Raskha Media Group, is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the scholarly publication record.
JOCSAIC does not tolerate research or publication misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulation of peer review, authorship misrepresentation, and other practices that compromise scholarly integrity.
All allegations will be handled fairly, objectively, confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, and in accordance with appropriate ethical publishing principles. Allegations alone do not establish that misconduct has occurred.
All parties receive impartial and evidence-based consideration.
Sensitive information is handled with appropriate safeguards.
Editorial decisions are documented and proportionate.
Definition and Scope of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct refers to conduct that seriously compromises honesty, accuracy, transparency, attribution, or integrity in research and scholarly publication.
This policy applies to:
- Manuscripts submitted to JOCSAIC.
- Manuscripts undergoing editorial screening or peer review.
- Accepted manuscripts awaiting publication.
- Articles already published in JOCSAIC.
- Authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants in the publication process.
- Research data, software, code, images, and supplementary materials associated with submissions.
Honest errors, differences in scholarly interpretation, and legitimate methodological disagreements do not automatically constitute misconduct. Each concern must be evaluated according to its nature and supporting evidence.
Types of Research and Publication Misconduct
JOCSAIC considers the following practices potential violations of research integrity.
Inventing or presenting nonexistent research data, experimental results, observations, participants, datasets, citations, or measurements as genuine findings.
Manipulating research materials, equipment, methods, measurements, data, or results in a manner that knowingly misrepresents the research record.
Presenting another person's words, ideas, code, research data, algorithms, figures, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment of related publications.
Gift authorship, ghost authorship, unauthorized authorship changes, fabricated identities, misleading affiliations, or deliberate misrepresentation of contributions.
Using fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent contact information, undisclosed coordinated reviewing, unauthorized access, or other methods intended to compromise independent review.
Coercive citation requests, coordinated citation arrangements, or inclusion of irrelevant references primarily to artificially influence citation metrics.
Altering, duplicating, removing, or selectively presenting visual evidence in ways that misrepresent experimental results or research observations.
Using artificial intelligence to fabricate data, invent references, generate misleading research evidence, conceal plagiarism, or misrepresent research originality.
Submitting fabricated or commercially produced manuscripts, purchasing authorship, or participating in coordinated publication fraud.
Misrepresenting ethical approval, informed consent, funding, competing interests, research permissions, or the provenance of protected research data.
Research Integrity in Computer Science and AI
Because JOCSAIC publishes research in Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Communications, special attention is given to the integrity of computational research and experimental reporting.
- Accurate representation of experimental datasets and their provenance.
- Transparent description of preprocessing, feature selection, and model evaluation.
- Truthful reporting of training, validation, and test procedures.
- Disclosure of material data leakage affecting reported performance.
- Accurate presentation of accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and other reported metrics.
- Proper attribution and licensing of reused datasets, source code, algorithms, and models.
- Disclosure of synthetic, simulated, or AI-generated data where material to the research.
- Avoidance of fabricated benchmark comparisons and manipulated computational results.
A methodological limitation or an unexpected result does not automatically indicate misconduct. Editorial assessment considers whether an error, omission, or misrepresentation is substantiated by the available evidence.
Reporting Allegations of Misconduct
JOCSAIC welcomes good-faith reports of suspected research or publication misconduct from authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, and other concerned parties.
Reports should be submitted through the official journal contact channel and should provide sufficient information to support an initial assessment.
Email: raskhamediapro@gmail.com
Publisher: CV Raskha Media Group
Subject: Research Misconduct Report - JOCSAIC
Where available, a report should include:
- Article title, author names, DOI, or manuscript identification.
- A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
- Relevant citations, source links, or supporting documentation.
- Specific passages, figures, datasets, or findings at issue.
- Relevant correspondence or other legitimate evidence.
- Contact information for follow-up, if the reporter is willing to provide it.
Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently specific evidence is provided. JOCSAIC does not require public disclosure of a whistleblower's identity and will not retaliate against individuals who report concerns in good faith.
Initial Assessment of Allegations
Upon receiving a misconduct report, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct an initial assessment.
This assessment may consider:
- Whether the allegation concerns material handled or published by JOCSAIC.
- Whether the concern is sufficiently specific to investigate.
- The relevance, credibility, and completeness of available evidence.
- Whether additional information is required from the complainant.
- Whether any editor has a conflict of interest.
- Whether the issue requires institutional investigation or external expertise.
Allegations lacking sufficient supporting information may be held pending clarification. Unsubstantiated allegations will not be treated as confirmed misconduct. The editorial office may reopen a matter if material new evidence becomes available.
Investigation and Editorial Handling Procedure
Credible allegations are handled through a documented process appropriate to the nature and severity of the concern.
The editorial office records the concern, identifies the relevant manuscript or publication, and preserves available supporting evidence securely.
An appropriate editor examines the credibility, relevance, and seriousness of the alleged violation.
When appropriate, the concerned author or other relevant party is informed of the substantive concern and invited to provide an explanation, clarification, or supporting records.
The editorial team evaluates available evidence and may consult independent subject experts or relevant institutions.
Where a formal research misconduct investigation is necessary, the journal may refer the concern to the relevant institution, employer, or appropriate authority.
The journal determines the appropriate editorial action based on reliable evidence, findings, and the integrity of the scholarly record.
Relevant parties are informed of appropriate outcomes, subject to confidentiality requirements. Significant decisions are documented and post-publication notices are issued where necessary.
JOCSAIC is responsible for editorial assessment and the reliability of its published record. Formal findings of research misconduct may require investigation by the relevant research institution or competent authority. The journal does not claim to replace institutional investigative procedures.
Confidentiality and Protection of Parties
Misconduct allegations may involve confidential research materials, personal information, institutional records, and unpublished manuscripts.
JOCSAIC seeks to ensure that:
- Allegations are handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.
- Information is shared only with persons who have a legitimate role in the assessment.
- Unpublished manuscripts and reviewer identities are appropriately protected.
- The identities of good-faith complainants are not unnecessarily disclosed.
- Authors and other affected parties are treated fairly.
- Personal information is handled in accordance with applicable requirements.
Absolute confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed where institutional consultation, legal obligations, or formal public notices are necessary. Information disclosure will be limited to what is reasonably required.
Rights of Authors and Respondents
An allegation does not constitute proof of misconduct. Individuals subject to allegations should receive appropriate procedural fairness.
- Receive sufficient information about the substantive concerns to respond appropriately.
- Provide explanations, corrections, or relevant supporting evidence.
- Identify potential conflicts of interest in editorial handling.
- Request reconsideration of an editorial finding when new material evidence exists.
- Receive an appropriate explanation of material editorial decisions.
The journal may restrict access to confidential third-party information or reviewer identities where disclosure would violate applicable confidentiality requirements.
Editorial Actions and Possible Outcomes
JOCSAIC determines appropriate actions according to the evidence, severity, and consequences of the issue.
| Finding | Possible Editorial Action |
|---|---|
| Insufficient evidence | Close the case or request additional information. |
| Correctable error | Request clarification, revision, or correction. |
| Serious concern during review | Pause editorial processing and investigate or refer the matter. |
| Substantiated publication violation | Reject the manuscript or take other proportionate editorial action. |
| Unresolved serious concern in a published article | Consider an Expression of Concern. |
| Verified significant published error | Publish a correction where appropriate. |
| Unreliable published findings or serious integrity failure | Consider retraction according to publication ethics guidance. |
Decisions are not based solely on automated screening results or unverified allegations. JOCSAIC seeks to avoid disproportionate or automatic sanctions.
Allegations Involving Published Articles
When an allegation concerns a published article, JOCSAIC will assess whether the reliability, accuracy, or integrity of the published scholarly record has been affected.
Correction
A formal notice addressing an error when the article's principal findings remain reliable.
Expression of Concern
A public notice informing readers of serious unresolved concerns about a published article.
Retraction
A formal notice indicating that an article should no longer be relied upon as a valid scholarly contribution, where justified.
Post-publication notices should:
- Identify the affected article clearly.
- Explain the reason for the editorial action.
- Be publicly accessible and dated accurately.
- Link to the original article and DOI where applicable.
- Preserve the traceability of the scholarly record.
- Be reflected in relevant metadata when technically supported.
Published articles will not ordinarily be silently deleted or altered to conceal a documented integrity issue. Removal may be considered where necessary for overriding legal, privacy, or safety reasons.
Cooperation with Research Institutions
JOCSAIC recognizes that research institutions and employers may hold primary responsibility for formally investigating allegations involving research data, laboratory records, personnel conduct, or institutional research practices.
Where appropriate, the journal may:
- Refer substantiated concerns for institutional assessment.
- Request information relevant to the reliability of a publication.
- Cooperate with appropriate research integrity officers.
- Consider institutional findings when determining editorial actions.
- Communicate with other affected journals where justified and permitted.
Institutional processes and editorial decisions serve different purposes. JOCSAIC may take necessary publication-record actions based on sufficient evidence even when disciplinary processes are separate or remain unresolved.
Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Investigations and editorial decisions must be conducted without inappropriate influence from commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional pressure, or publication fees.
Editors with an actual or potential conflict of interest must disclose the conflict and should not independently handle the affected case. Responsibility should be reassigned to an impartial editor or appropriately qualified party.
Where an allegation directly concerns the Editor-in-Chief, editorial management, or publisher personnel, the matter should be referred to an independent and appropriately qualified person or authority to avoid improper self-investigation.
Appeals and Reconsideration
Authors and other directly affected parties may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe that a material factual error, procedural concern, or new supporting evidence warrants further review.
Requests should be submitted in writing to the editorial office, explain the grounds for appeal, and include relevant documentation.
Appeals will be considered objectively and, where feasible, by an editor or qualified party not directly responsible for the original disputed decision. An appeal does not automatically reverse an editorial finding.
Case Documentation and Response Management
The editorial office should maintain appropriate records of material allegations and their handling, subject to applicable privacy, security, and retention requirements.
Relevant records may include:
- Dates when reports and responses were received.
- Descriptions of the alleged misconduct.
- Relevant manuscripts and supporting evidence.
- Editorial communications and expert assessments.
- Declarations and handling of conflicts of interest.
- Institutional correspondence where applicable.
- Decisions, reasons, and post-publication notices.
JOCSAIC seeks to acknowledge and assess concerns as promptly as reasonably practicable. More complex investigations may require additional time, particularly when external institutions or independent experts are involved.
Relationship to the Plagiarism Policy
JOCSAIC maintains a separate Plagiarism Policy for textual similarity screening and the evaluation of potential plagiarism.
These values are JOCSAIC's internal manuscript screening thresholds. Similarity reports do not independently establish plagiarism or research misconduct.
A manuscript may contain serious plagiarism even when its numerical similarity score is low. Likewise, a high score may reflect properly attributed or otherwise legitimate material that requires human assessment.
Read Plagiarism Policy →Policy Review and Implementation
JOCSAIC applies this policy alongside its Publication Ethics, Authorship Criteria, Plagiarism Policy, Peer Review Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Correction and Retraction Policy.
The journal may periodically review and update these procedures in response to changes in research ethics guidance, scholarly publishing standards, technology, and applicable regulations. Material policy revisions should be communicated through the official journal website.
Reference Standards and Guidance
This policy has been developed with reference to recognized international scholarly publishing ethics guidance.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - Ethical publishing and misconduct guidance.
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice - COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) - Journal quality and integrity guidance.
- COPE Guidelines on Journal and Institution Cooperation - Handling research misconduct cases.
Reference to these organizations and their recommendations does not imply membership, accreditation, certification, or formal endorsement of JOCSAIC.
Commitment to Research Integrity
JOCSAIC is committed to maintaining trustworthy scholarly publications through evidence-based editorial procedures, responsible investigation, procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability. Protecting the reliability of the scholarly record remains a central responsibility of the journal and its publisher.
Journal of Computer Science Artificial Intelligence and Communications
Published by CV Raskha Media Group
Research Integrity • Fair Investigation • Ethical Publishing
