Allegations of Research Misconduct

1. Scope of Misconduct

Potential misconduct includes:

• Fabrication or falsification of research data, model parameters, or numerical results.
• Manipulation of images, figures, simulations, or analytical findings.
• Plagiarism, undisclosed redundant publication, or misleading citation practices.
• Peer review manipulation or impersonation of reviewers.
• Misrepresentation of authorship, ethical approvals, or research provenance.
• Deliberate concealment of material errors or relevant conflicts of interest.

2. Reporting Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, and other concerned parties may report suspected misconduct through the journal's official editorial contact channel.

A report should identify the relevant manuscript or article, describe the concern, and provide supporting evidence where available. Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently detailed and credible.

3. Protection of Whistleblowers

The journal will treat good-faith reports respectfully and seek to protect the identity of reporting individuals where reasonably possible and legally permissible. Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance, particularly when disclosure is required for fair assessment or by law.

4. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

1. Record the allegation and preserve relevant evidence.
2. Determine whether the concern falls within the journal's editorial responsibilities.
3. Identify and manage conflicts of interest.
4. Request clarification from affected parties where appropriate.
5. Consult independent experts if specialized scientific assessment is necessary.
6. Refer matters requiring formal research investigation to the relevant institution or competent authority.

5. Institutional Investigations

Research institutions ordinarily have primary responsibility for investigating allegations concerning the conduct of their researchers. The journal may cooperate with such investigations while maintaining appropriate confidentiality and editorial independence.

The editorial team remains responsible for determining whether the scholarly record requires correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.

6. Outcomes and Appeals

Possible editorial outcomes include no further action, clarification, manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction. Relevant parties may submit reasoned appeals supported by new evidence or identification of procedural errors.

Appeals involving an editorial conflict should be considered by an independent editor or an appropriately designated publisher representative.