ALLEGATION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

In accordance with COPE Guidelines, Scopus Content Policy, and ICMJE Recommendations

The International Journal of Didactic Mathematics in Distance Education (IJDMDE) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. The Editorial Board regards research misconduct as a serious violation of the ethical principles that underpin scholarly communication. This policy establishes clear, transparent, and fair procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct, whether identified before or after publication, in full compliance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier's Publishing Ethics framework, Scopus content integrity requirements, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations.

1. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is defined as any intentional or reckless deviation from accepted standards for conducting, reporting, reviewing, or publishing research. For the purposes of this policy, research misconduct encompasses — but is not limited to — the following categories:

1.1 Fabrication

Fabrication refers to the invention of data, results, or findings that were never actually collected or observed, and the reporting of such invented information as if it were genuine. This includes:

• Manufacturing experimental results, statistical data, or survey responses

• Creating fictitious datasets presented as authentic research outcomes

• Inventing participant characteristics, sample sizes, or measurement values

1.2 Falsification

Falsification refers to the manipulation of research materials, equipment, processes, or results in a way that misrepresents the actual findings. This includes:

• Altering or selectively omitting data to support a desired conclusion

• Manipulating images, figures, or graphs beyond what is scientifically acceptable

• Modifying or suppressing inconvenient results without disclosure

• Using image manipulation techniques that distort the meaning of the original data (e.g., inappropriate brightness/contrast adjustment, splicing of gel images)

1.3 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, presenting them as one's own original work. This includes:

• Copying text from other sources verbatim without quotation marks and citation

• Paraphrasing another author's work too closely without attribution

• Self-plagiarism: reusing significant portions of one's own previously published work without disclosure (also referred to as duplicate publication or redundant publication)

• Presenting ideas, theories, or conceptual frameworks originally developed by others as one's own

• Unauthorized translation of a published work and submission as an original manuscript

1.4 Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation refers to any practice designed to artificially inflate citation counts or impact metrics, distort the scholarly record, or coerce citations. This includes:

• Coercive citation: editors, reviewers, or authors pressuring authors to add citations that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the manuscript

• Self-citation manipulation: excessive or unjustified self-citation by authors to inflate their own citation metrics

• Ghost citation: including references to works that were not actually consulted

• Citing retracted works without acknowledging their retraction status

• Citation cartels: coordinated mutual citation arrangements between groups of authors or journals

1.5 Other Serious Irregularities

In addition to the above, the following are also considered forms of research misconduct or serious publication ethics violations under this policy:

• Duplicate submission: submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal without disclosure

• Salami slicing: inappropriately splitting a single study into multiple publications to maximize the number of publications

• Authorship fraud: including individuals as authors who do not meet authorship criteria (gift authorship), or excluding individuals who do (ghost authorship)

• Peer review manipulation: creating fake reviewer accounts, providing false reviewer contact information, or attempting to conduct one's own peer review

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the integrity of the research or its reporting

• Misuse of Generative AI tools in violation of the journal's AI Policy (see separate policy document)

COPE Definition Reference: "Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." — COPE Guidelines, 2023 IJDMDE adopts and extends this definition to include citation manipulation and all other serious irregularities described in Section 1.5 above.

2. Scope of Application

This policy applies to:

• All manuscripts submitted to IJDMDE, regardless of their current stage in the editorial process

• All articles previously published in IJDMDE, without time limitation

• All parties involved in the publication process, including corresponding authors, co-authors, reviewers, and editors

• All content types published by the journal, including original research articles, review articles, short communications, letters to the editor, and case studies

3. Sources of Allegations

Allegations of research misconduct may be brought to the attention of the Editorial Board through any of the following channels:

Source	Examples
Peer Reviewers	Suspicion identified during manuscript evaluation (data inconsistencies, text similarity)
Editors	Concerns raised during desk review, post-acceptance quality checks, or post-publication monitoring
Readers / Third Parties	Post-publication concern submissions via the journal's official contact channel
Authors	Self-reported error corrections or retractions initiated by the authors themselves
Automated Detection Systems	Plagiarism software (iThenticate), image integrity tools (ImageTwin, Proofig), AI detection tools
Institutions / Funding Bodies	Formal notifications of ongoing institutional investigations involving the research
Other Journals	Cross-journal duplicate submission or overlapping publication identified by another editor

All allegations, regardless of source, will be treated with strict confidentiality and handled without prejudice or assumption of guilt until the investigation is complete.

4. Investigation Procedure

IJDMDE follows a structured, stage-based procedure for investigating all allegations of research misconduct, consistent with the COPE Flowcharts for Editors and the Scopus Content Policy. The procedure is designed to be fair, thorough, and proportionate to the severity of the allegation.

Stage 1: Receipt and Initial Assessment (Within 5 Business Days)

Upon receipt of an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) will:

1. Log the allegation formally in the journal's confidential editorial records

2. Conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy

3. Assess whether there is prima facie evidence sufficient to warrant a formal investigation

4. Identify and manage any potential conflicts of interest among editorial board members with respect to the allegation

5. Notify the complainant (where identifiable) that the allegation has been received and is under review

If the allegation is assessed as lacking sufficient basis or falling outside the scope of the policy, the EiC may dismiss it at this stage with a documented rationale. The complainant will be informed accordingly.

Stage 2: Preliminary Investigation (Within 10 Business Days)

If the initial assessment determines that the allegation warrants further examination, the EiC will:

1. Consult with at least one additional member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest

2. Conduct a systematic examination of the manuscript, supplementary materials, and any referenced data sources

3. Run or commission technical checks as appropriate: plagiarism detection (iThenticate), image integrity analysis, statistical review, AI detection

4. Compile a preliminary evidence dossier documenting the specific concerns identified

Following the preliminary investigation, the EiC will determine whether the allegation can be resolved at the editorial level or whether it requires escalation to a formal investigation (Stage 3).

Stage 3: Formal Notification to Corresponding Author (Within 15 Business Days)

If the preliminary investigation confirms that a credible concern exists, the Editor-in-Chief will formally notify the corresponding author in writing. The notification will:

• Clearly describe the specific nature of the allegation(s) with reference to relevant sections of the manuscript

• Provide any available supporting evidence that has been identified

• Request a comprehensive written response from the corresponding author, with a deadline of fifteen (15) business days

• Advise the corresponding author of their right to consult with their institution's research integrity officer before responding

• Inform the author that the editorial process for the manuscript will be placed on hold pending the outcome of the investigation

Important Note on Confidentiality: All communications regarding the allegation are strictly confidential. The identity of the complainant will not be disclosed to the accused party without the complainant's explicit consent, unless required by law.

Stage 4: Evaluation of Author's Response (Within 10 Business Days of Receipt)

Upon receipt of the corresponding author's response, the Editorial Board will:

1. Carefully review and evaluate the response against the evidence compiled

2. Seek independent expert assessment if the response raises complex technical or methodological questions

3. Consider whether the response fully and satisfactorily addresses all concerns raised

4. Reach a collegial decision on the outcome, with full documentation of the reasoning

If the corresponding author fails to respond within the stipulated deadline without providing a reasonable explanation, the Editorial Board reserves the right to proceed with a decision based on available evidence.

Stage 5: Institutional Referral (Where Applicable)

In cases involving serious or complex allegations of misconduct — particularly those involving fabrication, falsification, or systemic plagiarism — the Editorial Board will refer the matter to the author's employing or affiliated institution. Institutions are expected to:

• Conduct an appropriate, thorough, and timely investigation in accordance with their own research integrity policies

• Provide the journal with a formal written report of their findings and conclusions

• Cooperate fully with any follow-up requests from the Editorial Board

IJDMDE will cooperate with institutional investigations by providing relevant documentation and will coordinate its own response with the outcome of the institutional investigation wherever possible. In cases where an institution fails to respond or to conduct an adequate investigation within a reasonable timeframe (typically 90 days), the Editorial Board reserves the right to take independent action.

Stage 6: Editorial Decision and Action

Following the completion of the investigation, the Editorial Board will take one or more of the following actions, proportionate to the nature and severity of the findings:

Finding	Stage of Discovery	Editorial Action
No misconduct found	Pre- or post-publication	Case closed; all parties notified; records retained confidentially
Minor error (non-intentional)	Pre-publication	Author invited to correct before decision; manuscript may proceed
Minor error (non-intentional)	Post-publication	Correction (Erratum) published and linked to the original article
Confirmed plagiarism (partial)	Pre-publication	Manuscript rejected; author notified; submission ban may apply
Confirmed plagiarism (substantial)	Post-publication	Retraction published and permanently linked to the original article
Confirmed fabrication / falsification	Pre- or post-publication	Immediate rejection or retraction; institutional and funder notification
Confirmed duplicate submission	Pre-publication	Immediate rejection; author notified; submission ban imposed
Confirmed duplicate publication	Post-publication	Retraction; coordination with the other journal's editor
Confirmed authorship fraud	Pre- or post-publication	Rejection or retraction; all listed authors notified; institution informed
Confirmed citation manipulation	Pre- or post-publication	Rejection or retraction; note added to published record if applicable

5. Retraction Policy

Retraction is the most serious corrective action available to the journal and will only be applied when the integrity of the published record is significantly compromised. IJDMDE's retraction practice adheres to the COPE Retraction Guidelines and Scopus's requirements for transparent correction of the scientific record.

5.1 Grounds for Retraction

A published article will be retracted when the Editorial Board determines that:

• The findings are unreliable as a result of fabrication, falsification, or major error

• The article constitutes plagiarism of another published work or an unpublished manuscript

• The article has been published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure or cross-referencing (duplicate publication)

• The research was conducted without obtaining required ethical approvals or with serious ethical violations

• The authorship is fraudulent or disputed in a manner that fundamentally undermines the validity of the work

5.2 Retraction Procedure

1. A retraction notice will be published as a separate, citable document in the journal

2. The retraction notice will clearly state the reason(s) for retraction without ambiguity

3. The retracted article will be permanently marked with a visible watermark or overlay reading 'RETRACTED'

4. The retraction notice will be permanently linked to and from the original article in all online databases, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and CrossRef

5. The retraction will be assigned its own DOI for permanent, citable identification

6. The authors of the retracted article will be formally notified in writing prior to publication of the retraction notice

7. The date of retraction will be clearly indicated on both the retraction notice and the original article record

Retraction vs. Correction vs. Expression of Concern:   Retraction: Used when findings are unreliable or the article should not have been published (most severe). Correction (Erratum): Used for honest, minor errors that do not affect the conclusions of the article. Expression of Concern: Used when the Editorial Board has credible evidence of potential misconduct but a full investigation has not yet been completed. All three corrective notices are published as separate, citable documents permanently linked to the original article.

6. Sanctions and Consequences

The Editorial Board may impose the following sanctions, either individually or in combination, based on the severity of the confirmed misconduct:

Severity Level	Nature of Misconduct	Sanctions Applied
Level 1 — Minor	Unintentional error, inadequate citation practice	Correction notice; author advisory letter; educational guidance
Level 2 — Moderate	Partial plagiarism, undisclosed conflict of interest, minor duplication	Manuscript rejection; formal warning; 1-year submission ban
Level 3 — Serious	Substantial plagiarism, authorship fraud, peer review manipulation	Rejection/retraction; 2-year submission ban; institutional notification
Level 4 — Severe	Fabrication, falsification, systemic misconduct, data fraud	Permanent ban; retraction; institutional and funder notification; possible referral to professional bodies

Sanctions are applied at the discretion of the Editorial Board and may be escalated based on the presence of aggravating factors such as deliberate intent, repeated violations, or attempts to obstruct the investigation.

7. Rights and Protections

7.1 Rights of the Accused

• The right to be formally notified of all specific allegations before any action is taken

• The right to submit a full written response and provide supporting evidence

• The right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation

• The right to appeal the Editorial Board's decision (see Section 8)

• Protection from actions based on unsubstantiated allegations

7.2 Rights of the Complainant

• The right to submit an allegation in good faith without fear of retaliation

• Confidentiality of identity, to the extent permitted by the circumstances

• The right to be informed that the allegation has been received and is being investigated

• Protection from any retaliatory action as a result of good-faith reporting

7.3 Protection Against Malicious Allegations

Allegations found to have been submitted in bad faith, with the deliberate intent to damage a researcher's reputation, will themselves be treated as a form of research misconduct. The Editorial Board reserves the right to take appropriate action against individuals who submit knowingly false allegations.

8. Appeals Process

Any party who believes that the investigation was conducted unfairly, that relevant evidence was not considered, or that the decision was disproportionate to the findings, has the right to appeal the Editorial Board's decision.

8.1 Grounds for Appeal

• Procedural irregularity that materially affected the outcome of the investigation

• New evidence that was not available at the time of the original investigation

• Demonstrable bias or conflict of interest on the part of a decision-maker

• A decision that is disproportionate to the nature and severity of the confirmed misconduct

8.2 Appeals Procedure

12. The appellant must submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision

13. The appeal must clearly state the grounds for appeal and include all supporting documentation

14. The Editor-in-Chief will constitute an independent Appeals Panel consisting of at least two Editorial Board members not involved in the original investigation

15. The Appeals Panel will review the appeal and issue a final decision within 30 business days

16. The decision of the Appeals Panel is final and binding

9. Responsibilities of All Parties

Party	Key Responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief	Overall stewardship of the investigation process; final editorial decisions; liaison with institutions and publishers
Editorial Board Members	Objective assessment of allegations; participation in investigation panels; management of conflicts of interest
Authors	Full cooperation with the investigation; provision of raw data and original materials upon request; honest and complete responses to allegations
Reviewers	Good-faith reporting of suspected misconduct identified during peer review; maintenance of confidentiality throughout
Institutions	Conducting independent investigations upon referral; communicating outcomes to the journal; implementing appropriate internal sanctions
Publisher / Indexing Bodies	Supporting the journal's corrective actions; updating database records (retraction flags, DOI linking) in a timely manner

 

10. Timeline Summary 

Stage	Action	Target Timeline
1	Receipt and initial assessment of allegation	Within 5 business days
2	Preliminary investigation and technical checks	Within 10 business days
3	Formal notification to corresponding author	Within 15 business days
4	Author response deadline	15 business days from notification
5	Evaluation of response and editorial decision	Within 10 business days of receipt
6	Institutional referral (if applicable)	Within 5 business days of escalation decision
7	Final institutional investigation report	Expected within 90 calendar days
8	Publication of corrective notice (if required)	Within 10 business days of final decision
Appeals	Appeal submission window	Within 30 calendar days of decision
Appeals	Appeals Panel decision	Within 30 business days of appeal receipt

 

11. Reference Standards and Framework

This policy has been developed in full alignment with the following international standards, guidelines, and frameworks:

Standard / Guideline	Issuing Body	Relevance to This Policy
COPE Guidelines on Research Misconduct (2023)	Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)	Core procedural framework for handling all allegations
COPE Retraction Guidelines (2019, updated 2022)	COPE	Standards for retraction notices and corrective publication actions
COPE Flowcharts for Editors	COPE	Step-by-step decision trees for common misconduct scenarios
Scopus Content Policy and Selection Criteria	Elsevier / Scopus	Indexing integrity requirements and compliance standards
ICMJE Recommendations for Conduct of Research	ICMJE	Authorship criteria, conflict of interest, and data integrity
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)	World Conference on Research Integrity	Global principles of responsible research conduct
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)	DORA Initiative	Responsible use of metrics; citation manipulation standards
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity	ALLEA	Best practice standards for European research and publishing

12. How to Submit an Allegation

Any individual wishing to report a suspected case of research misconduct involving a manuscript submitted to or published in IJDMDE may do so through the following channel:

Contact for Research Misconduct Allegations: Email: editor@ijdimade.org  (subject line: RESEARCH MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION — [manuscript ID or article title]) All communications will be acknowledged within 5 business days. Complainants are encouraged to provide as much specific detail as possible, including: the manuscript or article in question, the specific nature of the concern, and any supporting evidence. Anonymous allegations will be accepted; however, providing contact information enables the Editorial Board to seek clarification and to update the complainant on the outcome.

13. Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed and updated by the Editorial Board at intervals not exceeding twelve (12) months, or sooner in response to significant revisions to COPE guidelines, Scopus indexing requirements, or other relevant international standards. All substantive changes will be published on the journal's website with the effective date clearly indicated. The version history of this policy will be maintained for transparency.

Issued by:
Editorial Board of the International Journal of Didactic Mathematics in Distance Education
Policy Edition: 2025  |  Next Review: 2026