Allegations of Research Misconduct

KIRANA: Social Science Journal (eISSN 3062-780X)

1. Purpose

KIRANA: Social Science Journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. This policy explains how the journal receives, assesses, and resolves such allegations, in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It applies to submitted manuscripts, published articles, and the conduct of authors, reviewers, and editors.

2. What Constitutes Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

Fabrication: making up data, results, or sources;
Falsification: manipulating research materials, data, images, or processes so that the results are misrepresented;
Plagiarism: using another person’s ideas, words, or data without proper credit, including self-plagiarism (text recycling) without disclosure;
Duplicate or redundant publication: submitting or publishing substantially the same work in more than one place;
Authorship misconduct: ghost, guest, or gift authorship (see the Authorship Criteria);
Ethical violations: conducting research involving human participants without informed consent or ethical approval where required;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest or improper use of confidential information;
Manipulation of peer review or citations, including fake reviewer identities and coercive citation;
Undisclosed use of generative AI in ways that violate the journal’s policy.

3. How to Report an Allegation

Allegations may be submitted by anyone (readers, reviewers, authors, editors, or institutions) by email to [journal email address], with the subject line “Allegation of Misconduct.”

Please provide:

The title and details of the article or manuscript concerned;
A clear description of the alleged misconduct;
Supporting evidence (for example, links, similarity reports, or copies of the original material).

Anonymous allegations will be considered only if they include sufficient and verifiable evidence. The identity of the person reporting will be kept confidential to the extent possible.

4. Procedure

Step 1: Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges receipt within [e.g., 7 days] and checks whether the allegation is credible and falls within the journal’s scope.

Step 2: Screening and evidence gathering. The editorial team verifies the claim using appropriate tools, such as plagiarism detection software [Turnitin / iThenticate / other], image checks, and a review of the submission records.

Step 3: Contact with authors. The corresponding author is informed of the allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to respond with explanations or evidence, normally within [e.g., 14–30 days].

Step 4: Review by the editorial board. If the matter cannot be resolved at this stage, it is referred to the editorial board or to an independent panel of experts. Anyone with a conflict of interest is excluded from the process.

Step 5: Involving institutions. Where necessary, the journal may ask the authors’ institution, funder, or ethics committee to conduct a formal investigation. The journal will cooperate and take their findings into account.

Step 6: Decision and action. The journal will decide on the appropriate action and inform the parties concerned.

5. Possible Outcomes

Depending on the seriousness of the case, actions may include:

Dismissal of the allegation, if it is not supported by evidence;
A formal reminder or education for the authors, in minor cases;
Rejection of the manuscript during the review process;
Publication of a correction (erratum);
Publication of an expression of concern, while an investigation is ongoing;
Retraction of a published article, following COPE Retraction Guidelines, with a public retraction notice that remains linked to the original article;
Notification of the authors’ institution, funder, or relevant authorities;
A temporary or permanent ban on future submissions from the author(s).

6. Confidentiality and Fair Process

All allegations are handled confidentially. Information is shared only with those who need to know in order to resolve the case. The journal will treat all parties fairly, will not decide before reviewing the evidence, and will not tolerate retaliation against anyone who reports a concern in good faith.

7. Misconduct by Editors and Reviewers

Allegations against an editor, editorial board member, or reviewer will be handled by the Editor-in-Chief or, if the Editor-in-Chief is involved, by [the editorial board chair / the publisher / the institution]. The person concerned will not take part in the decision.

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to [journal email address] within [e.g., 30 days], with new evidence or a clear explanation of the grounds for appeal. Appeals will be reviewed by [an editor not previously involved in the case].