Allegation of Research Misconduct

Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi Syariah (JHESy) is committed to protecting the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of the scholarly record. The journal does not tolerate research, publication, editorial, or peer-review misconduct and will take reasonable steps to prevent, identify, investigate, and address suspected misconduct involving submitted or published work.

Allegations will be handled fairly, confidentially, objectively, and without regard to an individual's identity, affiliation, position, reputation, or ability to pay publication charges. JHESy adheres to recognized publication ethics standards, including guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Definition and Scope

Research misconduct includes deliberate, knowing, or reckless actions that compromise the honesty, reliability, attribution, or ethical conduct of research and scholarly publication.

Misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

Fabrication: inventing data, observations, results, participants, experiments, references, or other research information and reporting them as genuine;
Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, data, images, or analyses, or omitting information in a manner that misrepresents the research record;
Plagiarism: using another person's words, ideas, data, images, methods, or other intellectual work without appropriate attribution (governed under our Plagiarism Policy);
Inappropriate text recycling: reusing substantial portions of an author's previously published work without appropriate citation or disclosure (self-plagiarism);
Image manipulation: altering, duplicating, removing, relocating, or combining image elements in a way that produces a misleading representation;
Duplicate or redundant publication: publishing or submitting substantially overlapping work without transparent disclosure and appropriate reference to the related material;
Simultaneous submission: submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time;
Authorship misconduct: gift, guest, honorary, coercive, purchased, or ghost authorship; omission of a qualifying author; unauthorized submission; or misrepresentation of contributions (see Authorship and Contributorship Policy);
Citation manipulation: adding irrelevant or unnecessary references primarily to increase citations to particular authors, articles, journals, or organizations;
Peer-review manipulation: providing false reviewer identities or contact information, impersonating a reviewer, interfering with reviewer selection, submitting fabricated reviews, or otherwise attempting to compromise independent peer review (see Peer Review Process);
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: deliberately concealing relevant financial or non-financial interests that may have affected the research or publication process (see Conflicts of Interest Policy);
Ethical non-compliance: conducting or reporting research involving humans, animals, biological materials, confidential information, or hazardous activities without required approval, consent, or safeguards;
Unethical AI use and fabrication: generating unverified synthetic data, inventing references, or failing to disclose substantive AI assistance in violation of the Journal's AI Policy;
Misappropriation: using confidential manuscripts, data, ideas, or other materials obtained through reviewing, editing, collaboration, or employment without authorization;
False documentation: submitting fabricated ethical approvals, consent statements, institutional letters, data-availability statements, permissions, or other supporting documents;
Paper-mill involvement: purchasing, selling, manufacturing, or arranging manuscripts, data, authorship positions, reviews, or publication services intended to deceive the journal; and
Any other deliberate practice that materially misrepresents the origin, conduct, analysis, review, or reporting of scholarly work.

Honest Error and Differences of Interpretation

Honest errors, differences in scientific interpretation, methodological disagreement, or unsuccessful replication do not by themselves constitute misconduct. Nevertheless, errors that materially affect the reliability or interpretation of an article may require correction, retraction, or another editorial response regardless of whether misconduct occurred.

The journal distinguishes, where possible, between intentional misconduct, questionable research practices, honest error, and legitimate scholarly disagreement. Editorial action will focus primarily on protecting readers and maintaining the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Similarity Screening

JHESy uses Turnitin as part of its editorial screening to assist in identifying textual overlap and possible plagiarism in accordance with the Journal's Plagiarism Policy. In line with that policy, the maximum permissible similarity index is 25% (excluding reference list, direct quotations, and standard phrases < 1%), and a similarity report is treated as an investigative aid rather than automated proof of plagiarism.

The journal does not determine plagiarism solely from a numerical similarity percentage. Editors will examine the nature, extent, location, attribution, and scholarly relevance of any overlapping text. Properly quoted material, references, standard technical expressions, descriptions of established methods, and legitimate overlap may be evaluated differently from unattributed copying or deliberate concealment.

A manuscript may be screened at submission or at another stage of the editorial process. The journal may request clarification, citation corrections, rewriting, or supporting documentation when significant overlap is identified, or apply sanctions specified in the Plagiarism Policy.

Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Concerns about a submitted manuscript or published article should be reported in writing to the Editor-in-Chief via the communication channels listed on the Journal Contact Page.

A report should include, where available:

The name and contact information of the person reporting the concern;
The manuscript identification number, article title, DOI, or article URL;
A clear and specific description of the suspected misconduct;
The sections, data, images, documents, or publications involved;
Relevant correspondence or supporting evidence; and
Any known institutional investigation or related proceeding.

A complainant is not expected to prove misconduct conclusively before reporting a concern. However, the allegation should be sufficiently specific and supported by information that can reasonably be examined.

Anonymous Allegations and Whistleblowers

JHESy will consider concerns submitted anonymously when they contain specific, credible, and verifiable information. An allegation will not be disregarded solely because the identity of the person reporting it is unknown or withheld.

The journal will protect the identity of a complainant or whistleblower as far as reasonably possible. However, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed when disclosure is required by law, necessary for procedural fairness, or essential for an institutional investigation.

No individual will be disadvantaged for raising a concern in good faith. Allegations that are knowingly false, malicious, threatening, or intended primarily to harass another person may be handled under the complaint procedures outlined in the Publication Ethics Policy. Even when communication is abusive, any credible evidence concerning publication integrity will still be assessed.

Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether:

The concern falls within the journal's responsibilities;
The allegation is sufficiently specific and credible;
The submitted or published work can be identified;
Relevant evidence is available or can reasonably be obtained;
Immediate action is necessary to protect reviewers, participants, confidential information, or the scholarly record; and
The matter should be referred to an institution, funder, regulator, or another journal.

The journal may dismiss an allegation when it is clearly unsupported, unrelated to the journal, impossible to examine because it lacks essential information, or concerns only a legitimate difference of scholarly opinion. When appropriate, the person reporting the concern will be informed of this outcome.

Investigation Procedure

When an allegation warrants further examination, JHESy will normally take the following steps:

Document the allegation and preserve relevant editorial records;
Appoint an editor or other qualified person without a relevant conflict of interest to handle the matter;
Notify the corresponding author or other person concerned and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond;
Request explanations, original data, laboratory records, images, ethical approvals, consent documentation, contribution statements, or other relevant materials when necessary;
Seek confidential advice from independent experts when specialist assessment is required;
Contact relevant institutions, funders, regulators, publishers, or other journals when the matter requires external investigation or coordination;
Assess all available information fairly and document the basis of the editorial conclusion; and
Take action proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and effect of the concern.

The journal may temporarily suspend peer review, editorial processing, acceptance, or publication while an investigation is in progress. Failure to provide a reasonable explanation or requested supporting information may be considered when determining the appropriate editorial action.

Responsibilities of the Journal and Research Institutions

The journal is responsible for evaluating the reliability of submitted and published content and for protecting the integrity of its editorial process and publication record. The journal does not determine employment sanctions or exercise disciplinary authority over researchers.

Research institutions, employers, funders, or competent authorities are generally responsible for formally investigating the conduct of individuals and determining whether institutional research misconduct has occurred. In coordination with the Institute for Research and Community Service (LP2M) of STAI Al Musaddadiyah Garut, JHESy may share relevant information with these bodies when justified and will consider their findings when deciding what action is required concerning a manuscript or published article.

The journal is not required to delay necessary action indefinitely while awaiting an external investigation. When sufficient evidence shows that published findings are unreliable or that the publication process was compromised, the journal may act to protect readers and the scholarly record.

Allegations Involving Editors, Reviewers, or Journal Staff

Allegations concerning an editor, reviewer, or member of the journal staff will be assessed under the same principles of fairness, confidentiality, independence, and proportionality.

An individual who is the subject of an allegation or has a relevant conflict of interest will not manage the investigation or determine its outcome. An allegation concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to another independent editor, the journal's publisher, or an appropriate institutional representative.

Depending on the findings, the journal may remove a reviewer or editor from the manuscript, discontinue future editorial or reviewing assignments, correct the editorial record, or refer the matter to the individual's institution or another competent authority.

Actions Before Publication

If a concern is substantiated before publication, the journal may:

Request an explanation, correction, or revision;
Require replacement or verification of data, images, references, or supporting documents;
Restart or modify the peer-review process;
Change the handling editor or reviewers;
Reject the manuscript;
Cancel an acceptance decision when serious concerns emerge before publication;
Notify the authors' institutions, funders, or other relevant authorities; or
Take other proportionate measures necessary to protect the editorial process.

Actions After Publication

If a concern relates to a published article, the journal will assess the reliability of the article and the effect of the concern on the scholarly record. Depending on the available evidence, JHESy may:

Take no further action when the concern is unsupported;
Publish a correction when a limited error can be reliably corrected;
Publish an expression of concern while a serious matter remains unresolved;
Retract the article when its findings are unreliable, its publication involved serious misconduct, or its integrity has been fundamentally compromised;
Update or replace supplementary material when appropriate;
Notify relevant institutions, funders, regulators, databases, publishers, or other journals; or
Take another action consistent with preserving an accurate and transparent scholarly record.

All post-publication notices—including corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions—shall be executed in strict compliance with the Journal's Withdrawal and Retraction Policy. Post-publication notices will be clearly identified, linked to the affected article, and explain the reason for the action to the extent permitted by evidence, confidentiality obligations, and applicable law.

Notification and Right to Respond

Individuals whose conduct or work is under examination will normally be informed of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless doing so would create a substantial risk of evidence being destroyed, confidentiality being breached, or an investigation being improperly influenced.

The journal will communicate the relevant outcome to the parties directly involved, subject to confidentiality, privacy, and legal limitations. A person who believes that the journal failed to follow a fair procedure may submit an appeal under the Editorial Appeals section of the Publication Ethics Policy.

Confidentiality and Recordkeeping

Information relating to misconduct allegations will be shared only with individuals or organizations that need the information to assess, investigate, or resolve the matter. The journal will retain relevant correspondence, evidence, editorial records, and decisions in accordance with its administrative and legal responsibilities.

Public statements will not be made solely on the basis of an unverified allegation. When public notification is necessary to protect readers or correct the scholarly record, the journal will use an appropriate and transparent editorial notice.