Allegations of Research Misconduct

Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. This policy implements the journal’s Ethics Statement and describes how concerns involving submitted manuscripts and published articles are reported, assessed, and resolved. The journal uses the Core Practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as a primary reference in handling ethical matters.

1. Scope

Potential misconduct includes plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, improper authorship practices, and inappropriate or undisclosed use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. Concerns about research ethics, data integrity, peer-review manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest may also require assessment.

An allegation does not, by itself, establish misconduct. The Editorial Board considers the available evidence, the authors’ explanations, and the effect of the concern on the integrity of the work. Honest errors and differences in scientific interpretation are assessed according to their nature and implications.

2. Initial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo similarity screening during the initial editorial assessment. JournalISI applies a similarity threshold of no more than 15%, inclusive of template structures and bibliometric references. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are subject to editorial review and may be returned for clarification or revision, or rejected.

Similarity scores are considered alongside the nature and context of matched material. A score within the permitted threshold does not, by itself, establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

3. Use of AI Tools

In accordance with the journal’s Ethics Statement, AI tools may be used for limited purposes, including language editing, grammar improvement, and readability enhancement. AI-generated content must not exceed 25% of the total manuscript.

Authors must disclose any use of AI tools in the manuscript, for example, in the Acknowledgments or Methods section. AI tools must not be listed as authors. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their work.

Potential non-compliance is assessed using the available evidence and the authors’ explanations. Automated screening results alone are not treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct.

4. Reporting Concerns

Concerns should be submitted to the Editorial Office at journal-isi@adsii.or.id. Reports should provide:

  • The manuscript identifier or the published article’s title and DOI or URL.

  • A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

  • Supporting evidence, references, or relevant documentation.

  • Contact details to facilitate clarification and communication.

Reports and related communications are handled confidentially. Information is shared only as necessary for the assessment and in accordance with the journal’s privacy requirements.

5. Assessment and Author Response

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the assessment with support from the Editorial Board. Relevant conflicts are handled under the Conflicts of Interest policy. An editor with a relevant conflict must not determine the outcome of the case.

The Editorial Board examines the evidence and gives the authors an opportunity to respond before a final editorial decision is made. Authors may be asked to provide explanations, underlying data, research records, ethical approval documentation, or other supporting materials.

Additional reviewers or suitably qualified experts may be consulted where necessary. External consultation must respect confidentiality and privacy requirements. Anonymized information should be used where sufficient for the assessment.

Where a concern requires investigation by an institution or another responsible body, the journal considers the appropriate referral while maintaining its responsibility for editorial decisions. Any disclosure of identifying information must be necessary for the assessment and have an appropriate basis.

6. Relationship to Peer Review

Ethical concerns may be identified during initial screening, either mandatory review round, subsequent reassessment, or post-publication monitoring, as described in the Peer Review Process.

Reviewers should report suspected irregularities confidentially to the handling editor. Completion of the required review rounds does not guarantee acceptance or resolve an outstanding ethical concern.

Concerns arising through Post-Publication Discussion are assessed under this policy when they involve potential misconduct.

7. Outcomes

Depending on the findings, the journal may request clarification or revision, reject a manuscript, or determine that no further action is necessary. Concerns involving published articles may lead to a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction under the Corrections and Retractions policy.

Formal publication-status updates are recorded in accordance with the CrossMark Policy.

Decisions and their supporting reasons are documented internally. Outcomes are communicated to the concerned parties, subject to confidentiality requirements.

8. Appeals

Appeals may be submitted to journal-isi@adsii.or.id, with a reasoned explanation and any additional evidence. The Editor-in-Chief reviews appeals in consultation with the Editorial Board where necessary. Where a relevant conflict exists, an uninvolved Editorial Board member or an appropriate publisher representative arranges independent handling.

Cases are addressed objectively, confidentially, and within a reasonable timeframe. Outcomes are communicated to the concerned parties.