JOVISHE: Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy, published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia, considers credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, irrespective of whether a manuscript is under consideration, has been accepted, or has already been published.

This policy explains what may constitute misconduct, how concerns may be reported and assessed, the distinction between journal-level editorial action and institutional investigation, and the measures available to protect the published literature. It complements JOVISHE’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Plagiarism Policy, Authorship Criteria, and Peer Review Process, and is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applicable Indonesian scientific-journal accreditation guidance.

The policy applies to all JOVISHE submissions and publications and to allegations involving authors, reviewers, editors, editorial personnel, or other participants in the publication process. Its scope includes empirical studies, theoretical and conceptual papers, literature reviews, Islamic finance and social-finance research, and applied innovation or design-based investigations in digital business and entrepreneurship.

A credible concern is examined with due regard for the evidence, applicable research standards, and the possible impact on the validity or attribution of a scholarly contribution. The journal distinguishes suspected misconduct from established findings, and honest error or legitimate scholarly disagreement from intentional or reckless misrepresentation.

The use of an AI-assisted tool is not automatically misconduct. Ethical concerns arise when it leads to deception, breach of confidentiality, inaccuracy, fabricated evidence, undisclosed material assistance, or violation of the journal’s specific AI rules. Likewise, a legitimate correction to an administrative error is not misconduct when its basis and authentic chronology remain traceable.

JOVISHE recognises that a scientific record can require correction even where no misconduct has occurred. Honest transcription mistakes, computational errors, incomplete descriptions, unforeseen methodological limitations, or good-faith differences of interpretation are assessed separately from deliberate falsification or deception.

An investigation may result in a finding that no misconduct is substantiated while still identifying a correction required to improve the scientific record. Conversely, an article may be unreliable and require retraction even when deliberate wrongdoing has not been established.

Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, research funders, or other parties. Reports should be submitted confidentially through the journal’s official Contact channel, identifying the matter as a Research Integrity Concern. Concerns involving a published article should identify its title and, where available, the article URL or DOI.

• Identify the work: manuscript title, authors, submission reference, publication details, or stable article link where available.
• Describe the specific issue: passages, figures, tables, analytical results, citations, authorship details, or editorial events that have raised concern.
• Provide supporting material: relevant source documents, reproducible observations, comparison material, or other lawfully obtained evidence.
• State any relevant relationship: disclose potential competing interests where applicable, and indicate whether other institutions or journals have been contacted.
• Request confidentiality when necessary: reporters may ask that their identity be protected; anonymous reports may be considered where verifiable detail is sufficient.

Submit a concern through JOVISHE Editorial Contact. Authors wishing to submit new research papers should use the separate official manuscript submission portal; that portal is not intended to replace the integrity-reporting channel.

The Editor-in-Chief, or a designated editor without a relevant conflict of interest, conducts an initial assessment of whether the allegation is within the journal’s remit, sufficiently specific to examine, and potentially material to the reliability or integrity of a manuscript or article. The journal may ask for more detail where a report lacks actionable information.

The initial assessment may involve inspection of manuscript versions, existing editorial and peer-review records, similarity reports, supplementary files, public scholarly sources, or appropriately protected research materials. External expert advice may be requested where specialist judgment is necessary. Review tools provide evidence for human interpretation; they are not substitutes for editorial assessment.

Any editor or staff member directly implicated in an allegation, or having a material personal, institutional, supervisory, or financial conflict, must not control the case. The publisher may facilitate appointment of an independent, non-conflicted editor or qualified external adviser as appropriate.

The duration of an inquiry depends on the complexity of the evidence, responsiveness of the parties, and involvement of external organisations. JOVISHE aims to address concerns without avoidable delay, but does not promise a fixed investigation or appeal period.

Editors and the publisher have responsibility for evaluating the suitability and reliability of manuscripts and published content, documenting editorial decisions, protecting confidentiality, and issuing appropriate public notices. Research institutions and competent authorities normally have the investigative powers required to determine whether a researcher committed formal misconduct and to impose employment or professional sanctions.

JOVISHE may communicate with another journal or an institution when concerns affect multiple publications or require further evidence. Such exchanges should be factual, proportionate, and limited to information reasonably necessary for the inquiry, consistent with COPE guidance and applicable confidentiality requirements.

Fees, sponsorship, publisher relationships, institutional prestige, or personal affiliations must not determine whether an allegation is investigated or what editorial outcome is reached. The journal’s review-related charge is separate from editorial judgments about research integrity.

Where serious and credible integrity questions arise during submission, screening, peer review, revision, or production, the editor may temporarily pause editorial processing while the matter is assessed. Authors should receive an explanation of the procedural status when appropriate and should not be deemed responsible for misconduct merely because processing has been paused.

• Clarification or revision: for remediable problems, request documentation, corrections, disclosures, revised analysis, or proper citation.
• Further specialist review: seek additional methodological, statistical, ethical, or subject-matter assessment if necessary.
• Rejection or withdrawal from consideration: where the evidence establishes that a submission cannot meet scholarly or ethical publication requirements.
• Institutional communication: request an appropriate formal investigation where the issue extends beyond the journal’s authority.

Decisions must be supported by an authentic record of evidence and correspondence. The timing of a decision or a request to revise must not be backdated or reclassified to make a manuscript appear compliant with an issue’s publication schedule.

Published notices should be clearly labelled, dated, persistent, and linked bidirectionally to the affected article where technically possible. The article record, DOI-related metadata, and indexing or repository records should be updated as appropriate. Retraction notices should focus on the reliability of the work and the reasons for editorial action; they should avoid unsupported allegations about individual intent.

Ordinarily, a retracted article remains available with a prominent retraction indication so readers can understand the scholarly record. Removal of content is exceptional and would require compelling legal, privacy, safety, or similarly serious grounds.

In research on banking, Islamic financial institutions, zakat and waqf, enterprises, household finance, tourism, and digital commercial platforms, authors may handle sensitive institutional, personal, or proprietary information. JOVISHE may seek sufficiently detailed documentation to verify a concern while recognising ethical approval conditions, data ownership, privacy law, consent commitments, and commercial confidentiality.

• Original data, coding files, questionnaires, anonymisation procedures, methodological protocols, and relevant statistical outputs may be requested when needed for a proportionate inquiry.
• Where public sharing would violate lawful restrictions, secure editor-only examination, appropriately redacted material, or independent institutional verification may be considered.
• Research materials and case correspondence must not be made public merely because an allegation exists.
• Authors and institutions should preserve potentially relevant material and provide accurate explanations of access limitations.

Authors must disclose material use of AI-assisted tools in accordance with journal policy, verify references and evidence, and remain responsible for all claims, interpretations, and outputs. AI systems cannot be designated as authors. Fabricated sources, synthetic observations presented as authentic data, misleading figures, or undisclosed manipulation of research outputs may constitute integrity concerns.

The journal also treats deliberate falsification of OJS workflow records, reviewer assessments, version histories, submission or acceptance timestamps, or public publication dates as a serious integrity concern. Legitimate corrections should preserve a transparent audit trail and the true chronology of events.

All parties to an inquiry are expected to communicate professionally and to refrain from intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or premature public accusations. The journal treats allegations as unproven unless supported by evidence and provides relevant individuals a reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to confidentiality and legal constraints.

Only individuals with a legitimate role in handling the case should receive sensitive correspondence. Documentary information is shared with institutions or external parties only as necessary and appropriate. A reporter’s good faith is assessed separately from the eventual substantiation of the concern; an allegation may be unresolved without being malicious.

Authors or other directly affected parties may submit a reasoned written request for reconsideration through the journal’s official editorial contact, explaining the grounds for appeal and identifying any relevant new evidence or procedural irregularity. An appeal is not an automatic opportunity to restart peer review solely because an editorial decision is unfavourable.

Where practicable, appeals are assessed by an editor or adviser who was not materially involved in the original determination and has no relevant conflict of interest. The outcome and its reasons are documented, and a case may be reopened when credible new evidence materially changes the assessment.

Concerns about the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief should be referred to the publisher for assignment to an appropriate independent decision-maker. Cases involving publisher personnel require the same protection against conflicted handling.

The journal maintains a secure record of relevant allegations, communications, evidentiary material, manuscript versions, reviewer assignments, author responses, institutional correspondence where available, decision rationales, and any post-publication notices. Appropriate access restrictions apply to sensitive files.

Editorial metadata and OJS activity records should reflect events as they actually occurred. The journal does not retrospectively invent reviewer reports, reconstruct approvals as though they occurred earlier, or alter dates to conform to an issue’s schedule. Where errors in publicly displayed metadata are identified, corrections should be attributable and documented.

These records support editorial accountability and the integrity of the journal’s accreditation evidence; the publication of this policy is not, by itself, proof that every operational safeguard has already been implemented.

This policy should be interpreted alongside the more specific provisions governing originality, authorship, peer review, and corrective action. If a procedural question is not expressly addressed, the Editor-in-Chief or a non-conflicted delegate may consult current COPE flowcharts and applicable institutional or legal requirements.