Allegations of Research Misconduct

Journal of Green Engineering for Sustainability (Greeners)

The Journal of Green Engineering for Sustainability (Greeners) is committed to maintaining research integrity and ethical standards in scholarly publishing. The journal follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its Core Practices on allegations of misconduct and its guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals in research integrity cases.

1. Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following practices:

Fabrication: Making up research data, results, or experimental observations and presenting them as genuine.
Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, results, or images in ways that misrepresent the research findings.
Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, data, figures, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without proper disclosure or justification.
Authorship misconduct: Inappropriate attribution or omission of authorship, including unauthorized changes to the author list or misrepresentation of individual contributions.
Citation manipulation: Inappropriately influencing citations, including coercive citation practices or the deliberate manipulation of citation counts.
Peer-review and editorial misconduct: Manipulating the peer-review process, fabricating reviewer identities, misappropriating confidential information, or improperly influencing editorial decisions.
Undisclosed competing interests: Failing to disclose financial, professional, personal, or institutional interests that could improperly influence the research or publication process.
Other ethical violations: Conduct that compromises research integrity, including breaches of research ethics approval requirements, inappropriate use of research participants or animals, or other serious violations of applicable research and publication ethics standards.

Honest errors, differences in scientific interpretation, or methodological disagreements do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Each case will be assessed individually based on the available evidence.

2. Reporting Allegations

Allegations of research misconduct may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, research institutions, funding agencies, or other individuals with relevant information.

Reports may concern manuscripts under review, accepted articles, or previously published papers. Allegations should be submitted to the journal's Editor-in-Chief or editorial office through the official contact details provided on the journal website.

Where possible, reports should include:

The title and DOI or other identifying information of the manuscript or article.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Supporting evidence, such as relevant publications, data, images, documents, or similarity reports.
The complainant's contact details, if they wish to provide them.

The journal will consider reports submitted anonymously, provided that sufficient information is available to assess the concerns. The identity of complainants will be protected where reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair investigation.

3. Assessment and Investigation Procedure

Upon receiving an allegation, the journal will assess the information and determine whether further action is warranted. The procedure will generally involve the following steps:

Initial assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will evaluate the allegation and supporting evidence to determine whether it raises a credible concern regarding research or publication integrity.
Request for clarification: Where appropriate, the journal may request an explanation, relevant data, original images, research records, ethics approval documents, or other supporting materials from the corresponding author and, where necessary, other authors.
Confidential evaluation: The journal will review the available evidence impartially and may consult independent experts who have no relevant conflicts of interest.
Institutional notification: Where serious concerns remain unresolved or an institutional investigation is necessary, the journal may contact the relevant author's research institution, employer, or funding body and provide appropriate supporting evidence.
Opportunity to respond: The authors concerned will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide relevant evidence before an editorial decision is made, unless exceptional circumstances require otherwise.
Editorial decision: Based on the evidence and any findings communicated by the relevant institution or competent body, the journal will determine the appropriate action in accordance with COPE guidance.

The journal will not treat an allegation as proof of misconduct. Decisions will be based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the reliability of the research record.

4. Actions and Outcomes

Depending on the nature and outcome of the assessment, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

Reject a submitted manuscript if serious ethical concerns are substantiated.
Request corrections, clarifications, additional documentation, or other appropriate remedial action.
Suspend the editorial process while a relevant investigation is ongoing.
Publish a correction or retraction for an article when warranted.
Publish an Expression of Concern when substantial concerns about an article's reliability or integrity remain unresolved and readers need to be informed.
Notify the relevant research institution, employer, funding agency, or other appropriate body.
Restrict or discontinue further editorial consideration where justified by established misconduct or repeated serious ethical violations, in accordance with the journal's policies and applicable procedures.

Any post-publication action will be proportionate to the findings and consistent with COPE guidance on corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record rather than to punish authors.

5. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

The journal will handle allegations and related communications confidentially to the extent reasonably possible. Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is necessary for a fair assessment, investigation, or appropriate resolution.

The journal will seek to protect complainants, authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties from unnecessary disclosure or prejudicial treatment. All parties will be treated fairly and impartially, and individuals involved in an investigation must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

The journal will not tolerate knowingly false or malicious allegations. However, an allegation that cannot be substantiated will not, by itself, be considered evidence that the complainant acted maliciously.

6. Cooperation with Research Institutions

The journal recognizes that research institutions are generally responsible for investigating allegations concerning the conduct of their researchers, while journals are responsible for editorial decisions and safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record.

Accordingly, Greeners will cooperate with relevant institutions and competent bodies when necessary. The journal may request information about the progress and outcome of an investigation and will consider substantiated findings when determining whether editorial action is required.

If an institution does not respond, declines to investigate, or fails to resolve a serious concern, the journal may consider further appropriate measures to protect the scholarly record, in accordance with COPE guidance.

7. Handling Unsubstantiated Allegations

If the available evidence does not substantiate an allegation, the journal will not make a finding of misconduct solely on the basis of the accusation. The journal may close the case if no further action is warranted.

However, if significant concerns about the reliability of a published article remain unresolved, the journal may take appropriate steps to inform readers while seeking clarification or further evidence.

8. Policy Review

The journal will periodically review this policy to ensure that it remains consistent with COPE recommendations and developments in research integrity and scholarly publishing.

Reference: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices: Allegations of Misconduct; and Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases (Version 2, March 2024).

Relevant resources: