Allegations of Research Misconduct

The Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation (JAFTCI) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, scientific reliability, publication ethics, academic transparency, and editorial accountability. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously, whether they concern manuscripts under editorial consideration, articles accepted for publication, or research already published in the journal.

JAFTCI addresses suspected misconduct through fair, confidential, independent, and evidence-based procedures informed by the ethical principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal recognizes that credible allegations require appropriate examination, while allegations alone do not establish that misconduct has occurred.

This policy applies to authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, journal administrators, and other parties participating in scholarly publication. It establishes procedures for reporting allegations, assessing evidence, obtaining clarification, cooperating with relevant research institutions, determining editorial actions, and protecting the integrity of the scientific record.

⚖️ 01. Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy Statement

JAFTCI does not tolerate research or publication practices that materially compromise the originality, authenticity, accuracy, ethical legitimacy, or reliability of scholarly findings.

All reported concerns must receive appropriate preliminary consideration, regardless of whether they are submitted before or after publication. The journal distinguishes allegations requiring formal investigation from honest scientific errors, methodological disagreements, differences in scholarly interpretation, and legitimate academic criticism.

JAFTCI Research Integrity Commitment

All allegations of research misconduct must be assessed impartially, proportionately, and according to verifiable evidence. Individuals accused of misconduct must be given an appropriate opportunity to respond, and individuals reporting concerns in good faith must be protected from inappropriate retaliation.

The primary purpose of editorial investigation is to maintain the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record, not to presume guilt or impose arbitrary punishment.

🚫 02. Types of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research misconduct and unethical publication practices may involve the following activities. The examples are relevant to food science, food technology, biotechnology, agriculture, cultivation, aquaculture, and other fields covered by JAFTCI.

📚 1. Plagiarism

Presenting another person's words, research ideas, findings, data, experimental methods, tables, figures, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment. Inappropriate reuse of previously published material may also raise concerns about self-plagiarism or text recycling.

🧪 2. Data Fabrication

Inventing experimental observations, laboratory measurements, food quality test results, cultivation yields, aquaculture performance data, survey responses, sensory evaluation scores, or other findings that were not genuinely obtained.

📊 3. Data Falsification

Improperly manipulating experimental procedures, research samples, datasets, statistical analyses, biological measurements, or reported results so that they misrepresent the research actually conducted.

🖼️ 4. Scientific Image Manipulation

Creating, altering, duplicating, selectively removing, or presenting scientific images in a way that misrepresents laboratory observations, microscopy, experimental samples, cultivation conditions, field evidence, or scientific findings.

📄 5. Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research in multiple journals without appropriate disclosure, scholarly justification, attribution, or editorial authorization. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is also prohibited.

👥 6. Authorship Misconduct

Misrepresenting intellectual contributions through guest authorship, gift authorship, ghost authorship, unauthorized changes to the author list, exclusion of legitimate contributors, or inaccurate declarations of author responsibilities.

🔗 7. Citation Manipulation

Introducing inappropriate, irrelevant, coercive, or unnecessary citations to manipulate citation counts, increase journal metrics, influence academic performance indicators, or artificially benefit particular authors or publications.

🔍 8. Peer-Review Manipulation

Using fraudulent reviewer identities, fabricated reviews, inappropriate reviewer influence, unauthorized access to the editorial system, manipulated review recommendations, or other activities compromising independent peer review.

⚖️ 9. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Deliberately concealing relevant financial, commercial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably influence the conduct, reporting, evaluation, or publication of scientific research.

🛡️ 10. Research Ethics Violations

Conducting regulated research without necessary ethical approval, informed consent, animal welfare safeguards, biological resource authorizations, biosafety procedures, or other applicable institutional and legal requirements.

🤖 11. Inappropriate Generative AI Use

Using generative AI to fabricate research findings, create misleading experimental evidence, invent references, generate deceptive scientific images, or conceal substantive AI involvement contrary to the journal's Generative AI Policy.

🚫 12. Fraudulent Submission Practices

Submitting manuscripts generated through paper-mill operations, falsifying supporting documents, misrepresenting ethics approval or funding, or engaging in organized practices intended to manipulate the scholarly publication process.

Important Distinction: Honest research errors, legitimate differences in scientific interpretation, and good-faith methodological disagreements do not, by themselves, establish research misconduct. The nature and supporting evidence of each allegation must be examined before any determination is made.

📨 03. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

JAFTCI encourages authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, funding organizations, and members of the scientific community to report credible concerns regarding research integrity or publication misconduct.

Allegations should be submitted in writing through the official JAFTCI editorial contact channel or authorized correspondence within the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Official Reporting Channel

Journal: Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation

Principal Contact: Sri Novalina Amrizal

Support Contact: Mahadiansar

Official Contact: Contact JAFTCI Editorial Office ↗

Required Information for Reporting an Allegation

  1. Publication Identification: Provide the manuscript title, author names, submission ID, article DOI, or official publication URL, where applicable.
  2. Description of Concern: Explain the suspected misconduct and identify the specific research materials, publication content, or editorial procedures involved.
  3. Supporting Evidence: Provide relevant research documents, published sources, screenshots, comparative analyses, similarity findings, or other verifiable information.
  4. Chronological Information: Include relevant dates, research circumstances, publication history, or correspondence where available.
  5. Reporting Party Information: Provide appropriate contact details for editorial correspondence, when available.
  6. Relevant Relationships: Disclose known personal, professional, institutional, or financial interests relevant to the allegation.

Anonymous Reports: Anonymous allegations may be considered when sufficiently specific and supported by credible evidence. Anonymous reporting may limit the editorial office's ability to request clarification or communicate the outcome.

🔄 04. Procedures for Handling Research Misconduct Allegations

JAFTCI follows a structured procedure for assessing allegations of research and publication misconduct. Each stage must be conducted appropriately according to the seriousness of the concern, available evidence, applicable confidentiality requirements, and the responsibilities of the journal.

4.1. Receipt and Preliminary Assessment

The editorial office receives and records the allegation, identifies the manuscript or article concerned, and determines whether the reported issue falls within the journal's responsibilities. Preliminary assessment may include examination of manuscript versions, editorial records, similarity reports, publications, research documentation, and other available evidence.

4.2. Assignment of an Independent Editor

The Editor-in-Chief assigns responsibility for the case to an appropriately qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest. Editors directly implicated in an allegation must not assess or determine its outcome. If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter must be referred to the publisher or an appropriately authorized independent representative.

4.3. Request for Author Clarification

When appropriate, the responsible editor contacts the individuals concerned and invites a response within a reasonable timeframe. Authors may be asked to explain the disputed findings and provide original datasets, laboratory records, source images, experimental documentation, ethical approval records, informed consent information, author contribution statements, or other relevant evidence. Correspondence must use neutral language and must not presume misconduct.

4.4. Evidence Evaluation and Expert Consultation

The editorial office examines the available evidence objectively and proportionately. Where the issue requires specialized knowledge, an independent expert may be consulted. If an allegation requires a formal research misconduct investigation beyond the journal's authority or capacity, JAFTCI may refer the concern to the relevant research institution, ethics committee, research integrity office, funding organization, or other competent authority.

4.5. Editorial Determination

Following consideration of the available evidence, relevant explanations, and any institutional findings, the responsible editor determines the appropriate publication-related action. The decision must be supported by documented reasons and be consistent with fairness, proportionality, editorial independence, and scholarly publication ethics.

4.6. Communication and Documentation

The editorial office communicates an appropriate explanation of the outcome to relevant parties, subject to applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements. Supporting evidence, author responses, consultations, editorial assessments, and decisions must be documented in the authorized editorial records.

The duration of each stage depends on the complexity of the allegation, the availability of relevant records, and the need for independent institutional investigation. The journal seeks to proceed without unreasonable delay while ensuring that evidence is evaluated carefully and relevant parties have a fair opportunity to respond.

🔍 05. Scientific Evidence and Research Documentation

JAFTCI may request supporting research documents when necessary to evaluate credible allegations. Requests for original records must be proportionate, relevant, and consistent with appropriate confidentiality, intellectual property, and ethical safeguards.

🧪 Laboratory and Experimental Records

Original laboratory measurements, experimental protocols, research logs, technical reports, laboratory instrument outputs, and other records relevant to evaluating the reported experiments.

📊 Research Datasets and Analysis

Relevant datasets, statistical calculations, analytical code, data processing documentation, and reproducibility information necessary to assess the reliability of the findings.

🖼️ Original Images and Figures

Original scientific photographs, microscopic images, research sample records, and supporting visual data used to assess alleged image duplication or inappropriate manipulation.

📄 Ethical and Institutional Records

Applicable ethics approvals, research permits, informed consent documentation, animal welfare approvals, funding declarations, and institutional authorizations.

Evidence and Confidentiality Principle

Supporting evidence must be evaluated without inappropriate disclosure of confidential participant information, protected datasets, institutional records, or unpublished intellectual property. A legitimate request for verification does not automatically authorize public disclosure of restricted research information.

⚖️ 06. Editorial Actions and Possible Outcomes

Following an appropriate assessment, JAFTCI may take one or more editorial actions according to the seriousness of the concern, the reliability of the available evidence, and the publication status of the affected manuscript or article.

Possible Editorial Outcomes

  1. No Further Action: The case may be closed when the allegation is unsupported, satisfactorily explained, or does not warrant additional editorial measures.
  2. Request for Clarification: Authors or relevant parties may be requested to explain disputed information or submit further documentation.
  3. Manuscript Revision: An unpublished manuscript may be returned for necessary correction when the issue can appropriately be resolved through documented revision.
  4. Suspension of Editorial Assessment: Editorial processing may be temporarily suspended when serious concerns require further examination.
  5. Manuscript Rejection: An unpublished manuscript may be rejected where substantiated scientific or ethical concerns materially undermine its suitability for publication.
  6. Publication of a Correction: A correction may be issued where a significant error requires rectification but the article's principal findings remain sufficiently reliable.
  7. Expression of Concern: An official notice may be published when credible and substantial concerns regarding a published article remain unresolved.
  8. Retraction: A published article may be retracted when sufficiently reliable evidence demonstrates serious unreliability or other circumstances justifying retraction under the journal's policy.
  9. Referral to Relevant Institutions: The journal may communicate relevant evidence to an academic institution, ethics committee, research integrity office, funding organization, or other appropriate authority for independent investigation.
  10. Additional Proportionate Measures: Where justified and supported by the journal's applicable policies, the editorial office may implement further measures to prevent repeated or systematic manipulation of publication procedures.

Proportionality Requirement: Editorial actions must reflect the nature and available evidence of the issue. Decisions must not be based solely on automated similarity scores, AI-detection results, unverified complaints, institutional pressure, or personal disagreement.

🔐 07. Confidentiality and Protection of Reporting Parties

JAFTCI is committed to protecting the confidentiality of individuals involved in research misconduct allegations to the extent permitted by applicable law, institutional requirements, and legitimate investigative procedures.

The identities of reporting parties, relevant manuscript records, confidential research materials, and investigation correspondence must not be disclosed unnecessarily.

Confidentiality and Protection Commitments

  • Protect the identity of good-faith reporting parties where reasonably possible.
  • Restrict access to confidential reports and supporting evidence.
  • Avoid unnecessary disclosure of unpublished research information.
  • Prevent inappropriate retaliation, intimidation, harassment, or discrimination against good-faith complainants.
  • Respect the rights and procedural fairness of individuals who are the subjects of allegations.
  • Avoid publicly presenting unresolved allegations as established misconduct.
  • Disclose information only where appropriately required for investigation, lawful communication, or responsible editorial action.

Knowingly false allegations, malicious reporting, harassment, and deliberate manipulation of evidence are not acceptable. However, a good-faith allegation that is ultimately unsubstantiated does not, by itself, constitute misconduct by the reporting individual.

📝 08. Appeals and Requests for Reconsideration

Individuals directly affected by an editorial action relating to an allegation of research misconduct may request reconsideration when they can identify a substantial factual error, procedural irregularity, previously unavailable evidence, or a relevant conflict of interest.

A request for reconsideration must be submitted in writing through the journal's official communication channel and must provide a clear explanation supported by appropriate documentation.

Grounds for Reconsideration

  1. Material errors in the evidence used to support the editorial decision.
  2. Relevant scientific information that was not previously available.
  3. Significant procedural irregularities affecting the fairness of the assessment.
  4. An undisclosed conflict of interest involving a responsible editor or evaluator.
  5. Other substantiated circumstances that reasonably justify further examination.

Where practicable, reconsideration should be undertaken by a qualified editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. An appeal does not automatically reverse an editorial decision or prevent necessary measures to safeguard the published record.

🔗 View JAFTCI Complaints & Appeals Policy ↗

📚 09. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

JAFTCI recognizes its responsibility to correct the scholarly record when an investigation or other credible evidence establishes that a published article requires an appropriate editorial amendment.

Where a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is warranted, the journal must prepare a clear, appropriately documented, and publicly accessible notice according to its Corrections, Retractions & Withdrawal Policy.

Requirements for Formal Editorial Notices

  1. Clearly identify the affected published article.
  2. State the nature of the correction, unresolved concern, or retraction.
  3. Explain the documented grounds for the editorial action without unnecessary or unsupported allegations.
  4. Identify the issuing journal or authorized editorial authority.
  5. Provide a direct link to the original publication.
  6. Maintain appropriate public accessibility and scholarly traceability.
  7. Update relevant publication metadata, including DOI information where applicable and technically supported.

Protection of the Scholarly Record

Retracted articles must remain clearly identifiable as retracted publications. Significant changes to published articles must not be silently introduced, and publication records must not be removed or altered merely to conceal scientific errors or established ethical violations.

🔗 View JAFTCI Corrections, Retractions & Withdrawal Policy ↗

🏛️ 10. Editorial Independence and Institutional Cooperation

All allegations of research misconduct must be handled independently of financial interests, institutional influence, professional relationships, personal affiliations, publication charges, or other inappropriate pressures.

The journal's authority to assess publication integrity is distinct from the formal investigative responsibilities of universities, research institutions, funding bodies, ethics committees, and other competent organizations.

Institutional Cooperation Principles

  • Refer matters requiring formal research misconduct investigation to appropriate institutions or competent authorities.
  • Provide relevant documented evidence to authorized institutional investigators when appropriate.
  • Protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations where legally and ethically required.
  • Consider verified institutional findings when determining necessary editorial actions.
  • Maintain independent responsibility for deciding whether published content requires correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.
  • Cooperate with relevant institutions without delegating the journal's ultimate responsibility for the integrity of its scholarly publication record.

The journal may undertake appropriate publication-related action when credible evidence demonstrates that an article is unreliable, even when a formal institutional misconduct determination is unavailable. Such action must remain evidence-based, proportionate, and procedurally fair.

📂 11. Editorial Documentation and Case Records

JAFTCI maintains appropriate records of research misconduct allegations, including relevant submissions, supporting evidence, author explanations, independent assessments, institutional correspondence, and resulting editorial decisions.

Required Case Documentation

  • The original allegation or research integrity report.
  • Identification of the affected manuscript or published article.
  • Available supporting evidence and documentary records.
  • Relevant correspondence with authors, editors, institutions, or reporting parties.
  • Assessments of editorial conflicts of interest and independence.
  • Independent expert evaluations or institutional findings, where available.
  • Documented editorial decisions and relevant reasons.
  • Records of necessary corrective actions and related publication notices.

Records must be stored and accessed in accordance with the journal's confidentiality and data protection procedures. Public communication of case outcomes must distinguish verified findings from allegations that remain unresolved.

📚 12. Publication Ethics Standards and Related Policies

JAFTCI's handling of research misconduct allegations is informed by internationally recognized principles of research and publication ethics, particularly those developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy should be read together with the journal's other policies addressing research ethics, plagiarism, editorial accountability, transparency, and post-publication correction.

🔍 Plagiarism Issue

Requirements for similarity checking, originality assessment, and editorial handling of plagiarism concerns.

View Policy ↗

🧪 Research Ethics & Article Declarations

Requirements for research approvals, consent, scientific integrity, contributions, funding, conflicts, and article declarations.

View Policy ↗

🤖 Generative AI Policy

Requirements for responsible AI use, accurate disclosure, scientific verification, and human accountability.

View Policy ↗

⚖️ Complaints & Appeals

Procedures for complaints, editorial appeals, independent assessment, and requests for reconsideration.

View Policy ↗

↩️ Corrections, Retractions & Withdrawal

Procedures for editorial corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and manuscript withdrawal.

View Policy ↗

💬 Post-Publication Discussion

Procedures for scholarly discussion, author clarification, and concerns raised after article publication.

View Policy ↗

📨 13. Official Research Misconduct Reporting Information

Individuals seeking clarification about suspected research misconduct, publication ethics, ethical investigations, or editorial procedures should contact the JAFTCI editorial office through its official communication channels.

Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation

Policy: Allegations of Research Misconduct

Publisher: Austronesia Akademika

Editor-in-Chief: Fidela Violalita

Scope: Submitted, Accepted, and Published Manuscripts

Eligible Reporting Parties: Authors, Reviewers, Readers, Researchers, Institutions, and Other Relevant Stakeholders

Investigation Principles: Confidentiality, Fairness, Evidence-Based Assessment, and Editorial Independence

Independent Institutional Cooperation: Where Appropriate

Appeal and Reconsideration: Permitted on Substantive Grounds

Research Misconduct Reporting Fees: IDR 0,- (Free of Charge)

Official Journal Website: https://journal.austrodemika.org/index.php/jaftci

Official Editorial Contact:  Contact the JAFTCI Editorial Office ↗