Allegations of Misconduct

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Allegations of Misconduct

How JETS receives, assesses, investigates, and responds to concerns about research and publication misconduct.

The Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences (JETS) relies on the honesty of everyone who contributes to it.

When someone raises a concern that a manuscript or published article may have been produced or handled improperly, the journal has a duty to look into it carefully, fairly, and without delay.

This page explains what JETS regards as misconduct, how to raise a concern, and what happens once a concern has been received.

Publication Ethics Framework

JETS follows the Core Practices and case-handling flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where this page does not address a particular situation, the editors apply the relevant COPE guidance.

Scope

What This Policy Covers

This policy applies to every manuscript submitted to JETS and every article published in the journal, including articles published under its earlier titles.

It covers the conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, and journal staff, and it applies whether a concern arises before review, during review, or years after publication.

Definitions & Examples

What JETS Considers Misconduct

Misconduct is any action that misrepresents how research was done, what it found, or who did it, or that corrupts the editorial process.

Important distinction: Honest error and genuine differences of scientific opinion are not misconduct; they are dealt with through corrections and scholarly debate.

Fabrication Reporting measurements, test results, survey responses, or simulation outputs that were never actually obtained.

Falsification Altering data, selectively removing inconvenient results, changing boundary conditions or model parameters without disclosure, or manipulating images in a misleading way.

Plagiarism Presenting another person's text, data, figures, code, designs, or ideas as one's own without proper credit.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication Publishing the same study, or substantially the same results, in more than one venue without disclosure.

Authorship Misconduct Guest or gift authorship, ghost authorship, or changing the author list without the agreement of all authors.

Undisclosed Competing Interests Failing to declare funding, employment, patents, commercial relationships, or personal ties that could influence the work.

Research Ethics or Confidentiality Conducting studies involving people or animals without required approval or consent, or publishing confidential information without permission.

Citation Manipulation Adding irrelevant citations to raise citation counts of particular authors or journals.

Peer-Review Manipulation Suggesting fake or conflicted reviewers, impersonating a reviewer, or attempting to influence reviewers or editors improperly.

Paper Mills Submitting manuscripts produced, sold, or brokered by third parties, or buying and selling authorship positions.

Misuse of Confidential Material Misuse of confidential material by reviewers or editors, including sharing a manuscript under review or using its unpublished content for their own work.

Reporting a Concern

How to Raise a Concern

Anyone may raise a concern: an author, reviewer, editor, reader, research-integrity officer, or member of the public.

Primary Contact

Editor-in-Chief

Please write to the Editor-in-Chief with the subject line "Research integrity concern" .

jets@itb.ac.id

If the concern involves the Editor-in-Chief

Address the concern to the publisher, the Directorate for Research and Innovation, Institut Teknologi Bandung, at dri@itb.ac.id , marked for the attention of the Director.

A concern can be assessed much more quickly if it includes:

Manuscript or Article
Manuscript number, or article title and DOI.

Description
A clear description of what is thought to be wrong.

Supporting Evidence
Relevant evidence with page, figure, or table numbers.

Other Proceedings
Whether the concern has also been raised elsewhere.

JETS will consider concerns raised anonymously or on social media, provided they are specific and supported by evidence that the editors can verify. Concerns that are vague, unsupported, or appear to be made in bad faith may not be pursued.

Investigation Process

How JETS Handles a Concern

Acknowledgement The editorial office acknowledges receipt within 7 working days.

Preliminary Assessment The Editor-in-Chief, or an editor with no connection to the case, checks whether the concern is specific, credible, and within the scope of this policy.

Gathering the Facts The editor reviews relevant material, which may include submitted and published versions, similarity reports, raw data, original image files, review reports, and correspondence. Independent experts may also be consulted.

Hearing from the People Concerned The authors or other individuals whose conduct is in question are told what the concern is and shown the relevant evidence. They are normally given 14–30 days to respond and supply requested information.

Involving Institutions Where Necessary If the response does not resolve the concern, or the matter concerns how the research itself was carried out, JETS asks the authors' institution to investigate under its own research-integrity procedures.

Decision The editor decides on the outcome in line with COPE guidance and informs all relevant parties.

While an investigation is underway JETS may pause the processing of a submitted manuscript, or publish an expression of concern on a published article to alert readers.

Outcomes

Possible Outcomes

The response is proportionate to what the investigation finds.

No Misconduct Found All parties are informed and the case is closed. If the concern was raised publicly, the journal may publish a brief statement, with the authors' agreement, to clear the record.

Minor Problems

If a minor problem is found that does not affect the reliability of the findings, JETS may:

Ask the authors to revise the manuscript before review continues.

Publish a correction linked to the article.

Write to the authors explaining the problem and the journal's expectations.

Serious Misconduct

If serious misconduct is confirmed, JETS may:

Reject a manuscript that is still under consideration.

Retract a published article with a retraction notice linked to the original article and registered with Crossref.

Publish an expression of concern where the evidence is substantial but not conclusive.

Report the findings to the authors' institutions, employers, or funders.

Decline further submissions from the individuals responsible for a period of 3 years.

Remove a reviewer or editor from the journal's reviewer database or editorial board.

Retractions Retracted articles are not deleted. They remain online, clearly marked as retracted, so that the scholarly record stays complete and transparent.

Fair Process

Fairness and Confidentiality

No one is treated as having committed misconduct until the evidence has been assessed and they have had the chance to respond.

Information about a case is shared only with those who need it to resolve the matter, such as the editors handling it, the experts consulted, the relevant institution, or where disclosure is required by law.

Protection for Good-Faith Concerns

JETS protects people who raise concerns in good faith. Their identity is not revealed to the individuals concerned without consent, and the journal will not tolerate retaliation against them in connection with its work.

False or Malicious Allegations Deliberately false or malicious allegations are themselves regarded as misconduct.

JETS aims to complete its part of a case within 3 months of receiving a credible concern. Cases that depend on institutional investigations can take longer; in that situation the journal keeps the person who raised the concern informed of progress where appropriate.

Review of Decisions

Appeals

Authors or other individuals who disagree with a decision made under this policy may appeal once, in writing, to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of being notified.

Written Appeal The appeal must explain why the decision is believed to be wrong.

New Evidence Any new evidence should be included with the appeal.

Independent Review The appeal is reviewed by an editor or independent adviser not involved in the original decision.

Final Outcome The outcome of the appeal is final.

Appeals involving the Editor-in-Chief are handled by the publisher.

Documentation

Records

Minimum Retention Period

JETS keeps a confidential record of every concern received, the steps taken, the evidence considered, and the outcome. Records are retained for at least 5 years after a case is closed and are used to identify repeated or systematic problems.

Prevention