Allegations of Publication Misconduct

Jurnal Pengmas Kestra (JPK) is committed to upholding academic integrity, objectivity in the peer-review process, and the authenticity of community service activities and outcomes reported in its publications. The journal adheres to the internationally recognized guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in addressing allegations of publication misconduct and unethical scholarly practices.

1. Types of Publication Misconduct

Publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following practices:

  1. Data Fabrication: Creating, inventing, or reporting fictitious data concerning the implementation of community service activities, field observations, or program outcomes, including pre- and post-intervention measurements that were never actually conducted.

  2. Data Falsification: Manipulating materials, activity records, implementation procedures, evaluation results, or reported community impacts in a manner that misrepresents the actual processes or outcomes of community service programs.

  3. Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism: Using or reproducing another person's ideas, text, implementation methods, program frameworks, or previously published materials, including one's own published work, without proper acknowledgment or citation. All submitted manuscripts are subject to similarity screening using plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin. Similarity results are evaluated in context and do not, by themselves, establish plagiarism.

  4. Authorship Misconduct: Engaging in unethical authorship practices, including ghost authorship, gift authorship, or honorary authorship, as well as listing individuals who have not made substantial contributions that satisfy the journal's authorship criteria.

  5. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication: Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously, or publishing substantially overlapping content without appropriate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment of the original publication.

  6. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose financial, institutional, professional, or other relationships and interests that may influence the objectivity, interpretation, or reporting of community service activities and their outcomes.

2. Investigation Procedure

When the Editorial Board of Jurnal Pengmas Kestra (JPK) receives a formal complaint, a concern raised by a reviewer, or evidence indicating potential publication misconduct, the journal will follow an objective, confidential, and fair investigation process in accordance with relevant COPE guidelines.

The investigation procedure includes the following stages:

1. Submission of Initial Evidence

Individuals reporting suspected misconduct may submit a formal complaint to the Editor-in-Chief, accompanied by relevant and verifiable supporting evidence.

The journal will protect the confidentiality of the complainant's identity to the extent reasonably possible and permitted by applicable regulations.

2. Preliminary Assessment

The Editorial Board will conduct an initial confidential and impartial assessment to determine the credibility, relevance, and substance of the allegations.

This assessment aims to establish whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed with further investigation.

3. Clarification from the Authors

The editor will contact the Corresponding Author to communicate the concerns and request an explanation, clarification, or relevant supporting documentation within a specified timeframe.

Such documentation may include community service implementation records, activity reports, field documentation, attendance records, evaluation instruments, original data, or other evidence related to the reported activities.

The authors will be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide supporting information.

4. Editorial Decision and Follow-Up Actions

Following the assessment of the available evidence and the authors' responses, the Editorial Board will determine the appropriate course of action.

  • Unintentional Errors: If the issue involves an honest mistake, administrative error, or unintentional inaccuracy, the journal may request revisions or, for published articles, issue an appropriate correction notice, such as an erratum or corrigendum, depending on the nature of the error.

  • Serious or Deliberate Misconduct: If substantial evidence indicates serious or intentional publication misconduct, the Editorial Board may take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and relevant COPE guidelines.

Where necessary, the journal may consult relevant institutions or other appropriate parties to facilitate an impartial and thorough investigation.

3. Sanctions and Corrective Actions

Depending on the nature, severity, and supporting evidence of the misconduct, Jurnal Pengmas Kestra (JPK) may implement one or more of the following measures:

  1. Manuscript Rejection: Rejecting a manuscript under review when serious violations of publication ethics have been established.

  2. Article Retraction: Formally retracting a published article when its findings, reported activities, or conclusions are considered unreliable due to serious errors or misconduct. A retraction notice will be published and clearly linked to the original article to maintain transparency in the scholarly record.

  3. Notification to Affiliated Institutions: Formally notifying the author's affiliated institution, relevant organization, or community service funding body when substantial evidence of serious misconduct warrants further institutional investigation or action.

  4. Publication Restrictions: Imposing restrictions on future manuscript submissions by authors involved in serious or repeated misconduct, including permanent submission bans in exceptional circumstances, following a documented and fair editorial assessment.

All decisions will be based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the violation, and the principles of fairness, proportionality, transparency, and accountability.

The journal recognizes that not all publication errors constitute intentional misconduct. Corrective actions will therefore be determined according to the circumstances of each case and the applicable COPE guidance.

Reference: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)