INTELLECT JOURNAL • EDITORIAL & PUBLICATION ETHICS

Research Misconduct Policy

Allegations, fair assessment, and protection of the scholarly record

Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation is committed to the integrity, reliability, and transparency of research in educational technology, learning innovation, and applied digital technologies for education. The journal treats credible concerns about research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they arise before or after publication.

This policy complements the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Plagiarism Policy, peer-review procedures, and authorship requirements. Its procedures are informed by guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

1. Scope and Examples of Misconduct

Research or publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Data fabrication: Inventing research data, participants, observations, analyses, or results that were not obtained through the reported research.
• Data falsification: Inappropriately changing, omitting, or misrepresenting data, research procedures, analysis outputs, or findings.
• Image, figure, or analytical manipulation: Altering visual or computational evidence in a way that misleads readers about the research.
• Plagiarism and unattributed reuse: Presenting another person's text, ideas, data, code, images, or other work without appropriate acknowledgement; serious undisclosed overlap with earlier publications may also raise concerns.
• Redundant or concurrent publication: Submitting substantially the same work to multiple journals at the same time or republishing findings without adequate disclosure and justification.
• Authorship misrepresentation: Gift, guest, ghost, purchased, or otherwise falsified authorship, including inaccurate contribution statements.
• Peer-review or editorial manipulation: Impersonation of reviewers, fabricated reviewer identities or reports, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or attempts to interfere improperly with editorial decisions.
• Citation manipulation: Deliberately adding irrelevant references to influence citation metrics rather than to support scholarly argument.
• Research ethics violations: Failure to obtain required approvals or permissions, misuse of participant information, or other material breaches of applicable research ethics requirements.
• Misrepresentation of AI-assisted research: Submitting fabricated data, images, references, or results produced with AI tools, or concealing material AI use when disclosure is required under journal policy.

Use of an AI-assisted tool does not automatically constitute misconduct. The concern arises when its use compromises accuracy, originality, confidentiality, transparency, or the integrity of the research record.

2. Reporting a Concern

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and other stakeholders may report potential misconduct involving a manuscript submitted to or an article published in Intellect.

Concerns should be sent to the editorial office through the journal's official contact channels. When possible, a report should identify the manuscript or article (including its title, DOI, or link), describe the specific concern, and provide supporting evidence or verifiable references.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficient information to permit a meaningful assessment. Reports made in good faith are treated respectfully. If information is insufficient, the editorial office may request clarification before proceeding.

Reporting channel: Official Journal Contact Page.

3. Assessment and Editorial Inquiry

The following steps provide the general procedure for responding to concerns. The sequence may be adapted to the nature of the allegation and the evidence available.

The timing of an inquiry may vary according to its complexity, the availability of evidence, and the involvement of external institutions. The journal aims to act without unnecessary delay but does not promise a fixed completion period.

4. Responsibilities and Editorial Independence

The Editor-in-Chief oversees editorial assessment of integrity concerns, with support from the Editorial Board and the publisher, Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), where appropriate. If the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility for the case should be assigned to an independent, non-conflicted editor.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification, data, documentation, permissions, and corrections. Reviewers and editorial staff must report credible concerns encountered during the assessment of manuscripts and protect confidential information entrusted to them.

The journal assesses the implications of a concern for submission decisions and the published record. Formal findings of research misconduct, employment-related sanctions, and institutional disciplinary actions ordinarily fall within the authority of the relevant research institution or competent body.

Editorial decisions are based on evidence and publication ethics, not on the payment of publication charges. The journal does not offer paid fast-track review or preferential treatment in misconduct assessments.

5. Action Before Publication

When a concern arises during editorial screening, peer review, revision, or production, the journal may pause the process while the matter is clarified. Depending on the findings, the journal may:

• Request an explanation, correction, revised analysis, or supporting data where the concern can be adequately addressed.
• Seek an additional independent assessment of the methods, data, figures, originality, or ethical documentation.
• Reject or withdraw a manuscript from editorial consideration when serious unresolved or substantiated integrity concerns make publication inappropriate.
• Refer the matter to the author's institution or another appropriate body if investigation beyond the journal's authority is needed.

An originality or similarity report is a screening aid, not conclusive proof of plagiarism. The significance of any overlap is determined through editorial examination of the sources, context, attribution, and potential impact on the originality of the work.

6. Action After Publication

A credible concern received after publication will be assessed even if the article has already been assigned to a volume or issue. The journal may seek further expert evaluation or information from relevant institutions.

Possible editorial outcomes include:

• No further action: When the concern is not supported by the evidence available, or a satisfactory explanation resolves it.
• Correction: When a specific error can be corrected without undermining the reliability of the article as a whole.
• Expression of Concern: When serious unresolved questions about reliability need to be communicated to readers while further information is sought.
• Retraction: When the findings or content are no longer sufficiently reliable, or other serious grounds for retraction are established in accordance with applicable editorial guidance.

Correction, expression-of-concern, and retraction notices should clearly identify the affected article and remain accessible and linked to the publication record. Retraction is intended to protect the scholarly literature, not to serve as a penalty against authors. The original scholarly record should be preserved wherever appropriate and legally permissible.

7. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Protection of Information

Reports and case materials are handled with appropriate discretion and shared only with people or organizations who have a legitimate role in examining or resolving the concern. Confidentiality may be limited when disclosure is necessary for a fair inquiry, institutional referral, legal compliance, or a transparent public notice.

The journal considers the identities and personal information of reporting parties with care and does not disclose a reporter's identity unnecessarily. At the same time, allegations must be sufficiently specific for the affected parties to provide a meaningful response.

The journal does not presume misconduct on the basis of anonymous allegations, disputed interpretations, software scores, or the reputation of any individual or institution. Its response is guided by evidence, impartiality, and the need to maintain research integrity.

8. Review of Decisions and Further Concerns

An author or other directly affected party may request reconsideration of an editorial action by providing a written explanation and any relevant new evidence through the official journal contact channel.

Requests are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or, where the original decision-maker has a conflict of interest, another appropriately designated editor. Reconsideration does not automatically reverse a decision or suspend a necessary public notice.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct may be raised with the publisher through the journal's contact arrangements for independent consideration where appropriate.

9. Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy addresses allegations and the procedure for responding to them. It should be read together with the journal's specific rules on plagiarism, authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, the responsible use of AI, and post-publication corrections or retractions.

Where more detailed policies apply, the journal will seek a consistent, evidence-based response and will update any older provisions that are inconsistent with its current ethical standards.

International reference frameworks: Scopus: Publication Ethics and Malpractice Guidance; COPE / DOAJ Transparency Principles; COPE: Responding to Whistleblowers; COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025).

Publisher: Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation)
Journal: Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation