Allegations of Research Misconduct

Edumatika : Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Every allegation, whether it concerns a submitted manuscript or a published article, is investigated fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the COPE flowcharts and guidelines.

1. What Counts as Misconduct

Type Examples
Fabrication Inventing data, participants, responses, or results
Falsification Manipulating data, images, or analyses; selectively omitting results
Plagiarism Using others’ text, ideas, data, or instruments without citation, including self-plagiarism and translation plagiarism
Redundant publication Duplicate or concurrent submission; salami slicing
Authorship misconduct Ghost, gift, or purchased authorship
Manipulation of review or citations Fake reviewer identities, citation cartels, coercive citation
Ethics violations Research with students or teachers without ethical clearance or informed consent; exposure of participants’ identities
Undisclosed interests or AI use Undeclared conflicts of interest; undisclosed generative AI use or AI-fabricated content

2. How to Report

Anyone, including readers, reviewers, editors, and authors, may report a concern. Please send the report to [email protected] or through the contact page, and include:

  • the title and DOI (or manuscript ID) of the work concerned;
  • a clear description of the concern; and
  • any supporting evidence, such as links to overlapping sources, data inconsistencies, or images.

Reports may be made anonymously, but anonymous reports must include enough verifiable evidence to be assessed. The identity of the person making the report is kept confidential.

3. How Allegations Are Handled

1. Acknowledgment: the journal acknowledges receipt of the report and records it.

2. Preliminary assessment: the Editor-in-Chief, together with an editor not involved in the original handling, assesses whether the concern is supported by evidence and falls within the journal’s remit.

3. Response from the authors: the authors are informed of the concern, given the evidence, and invited to respond and to provide relevant materials, such as raw data or ethical approval documents.

4. Further investigation: if the response is unsatisfactory, the journal may consult independent experts and refer the case to the authors’ institution or funder, which is responsible for investigating the conduct of its researchers.

5. Decision and action: the journal decides on the appropriate action and informs the authors and, where appropriate, the person who raised the concern.

4. Possible Outcomes

Situation Possible action
Concern not substantiated No action; the case is closed and the authors are informed
Minor issue or honest error Request for clarification or a correction
Investigation ongoing or inconclusive Expression of concern linked to the article
Misconduct confirmed (manuscript under review) Rejection of the manuscript; notification of the authors’ institution
Misconduct confirmed (published article) Retraction, following the Correction and Retraction policy; notification of the authors’ institution

5. Principles

  • Fairness: authors are presumed innocent until the evidence shows otherwise and always have the opportunity to respond.
  • Confidentiality: allegations are discussed only with those who need to be involved.
  • Independence: editors with a conflict of interest do not take part in the investigation.
  • Appeals: authors may appeal a decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with new evidence or arguments.