Allegations of Misconduct

Dampak investigates every credible allegation of research, publication or peer-review misconduct through a documented process led by the Editor-in-Chief and an ethics panel, with a written reply to the person who reported it, a 14-day right of reply for the person accused, and a right of appeal.

1. Introduction and scope

Dampak: Jurnal Teknik Lingkungan Universitas Andalas is committed to research integrity and follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy explains how the journal receives, assesses and resolves allegations of research, publication and peer-review misconduct, so that each case is handled fairly, confidentially and with a clear outcome.

It applies to every manuscript submitted to or published in Dampak, and to everyone involved: authors, reviewers, editors and the editorial office. Plagiarism is one form of misconduct. Its screening and sanction levels are set in the Plagiarism Policy; this policy sets the process for handling any allegation, plagiarism included.

2. What counts as misconduct

  • Fabrication: inventing data or results and reporting them.
  • Falsification: manipulating materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data so that the research is misrepresented. In environmental engineering this includes altering field measurements, laboratory results, monitoring records or model outputs.
  • Plagiarism and redundant publication: taking another person's ideas, words, data or figures without credit, reusing one's own published work without citation, or submitting the same work to several journals at once.
  • Image and data manipulation: altering photographs, maps, micrographs or charts in a way that misleads the reader.
  • Authorship abuse: gift, guest or ghost authorship, leaving out someone who qualifies, or listing an author without their consent.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest by authors, reviewers or editors.
  • Breach of research ethics: missing ethical approval or consent for studies involving people, such as community or workplace surveys, or using data from companies, agencies or communities without permission.
  • Citation manipulation: inflating citation counts or misrepresenting cited work.
  • Peer review manipulation: fake reviewer identities, collusion between authors and reviewers, or a reviewer breaching confidentiality or using a manuscript's ideas.
  • Undisclosed use of generative AI, as set out in the AI Policy.
  • Editorial misconduct: decisions influenced by a conflict of interest, or disclosure of confidential manuscript information.

An allegation may concern a submitted manuscript, a published article, or the research behind either. Anyone may raise one: authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions or whistleblowers. An honest error is not misconduct; it is handled by a correction.

3. Principles

  • Every credible allegation is investigated, whoever raises it and whatever its source.
  • Impartiality: the people who assess a case have no conflict of interest in it.
  • Fairness: no finding is made against anyone before they have had the chance to respond.
  • Confidentiality: the identities of the reporter and the accused, and the details of the case, are shared only with those who need them, or as law or an institution requires.
  • Protection of reporters: people who raise concerns in good faith are protected from retaliation as far as the journal can ensure.
  • Cooperation: authors, reviewers and institutions are expected to cooperate with an investigation.
  • Good faith: an allegation made knowingly falsely or maliciously may itself be treated as a breach of publication ethics.

4. Who handles allegations

Allegations are sent in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the editorial office; see the Contact page.

The ethics panel assesses allegations, investigates them and advises on the outcome. It consists of the Editor-in-Chief and at least two editorial board members who have no connection to the case. The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision on the panel's advice.

If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, or a close collaborator or colleague of a panel member, that person steps out of the case. A board member from a different institution then leads it. If no suitable board member is available, the journal asks external experts. Complex cases may also involve COPE advice or legal counsel.

5. Procedure

Step What happens Target time
1. Report The reporter writes to the Editor-in-Chief, giving the manuscript or article details, the concern and any evidence. Anonymous reports are considered if they contain verifiable evidence. n/a
2. Acknowledge The editorial office confirms receipt to the reporter. Within 7 days of receipt
3. Initial assessment The panel decides whether the allegation is specific, credible and within scope. If not, the case is closed and the reporter is told why. Within 14 days of receipt
4. Notify the accused The accused receives the allegation and the evidence, with the reporter's identity withheld where appropriate, and may reply in writing. 14 days to reply
5. Investigate The panel reviews the manuscript, raw data, analysis or model files, review reports and correspondence, and may ask the authors for further data. It may hold a manuscript in review or publish an expression of concern while the case is open. Aim to conclude within 90 days of the initial assessment
6. Involve institutions In serious cases, or where the research itself is in question, the journal informs the authors' institution, funder or other journals concerned, as COPE advises. If an institution is investigating, the journal normally waits for its findings and may take interim action. Status update to the parties every 30 days
7. Decide and inform The Editor-in-Chief decides on the panel's advice and informs the reporter and the accused in writing, with reasons. Within 14 days of the panel's conclusion

Target times can be extended when an institution's investigation is under way or the case is complex; the parties are then told why.

6. Outcomes

Finding Typical action
No misconduct The case is closed and the parties are informed. If the allegation was made publicly, the journal may publish a statement.
Honest error, or minor misconduct (for example minor plagiarism, or an undeclared conflict with no effect on the findings) A warning or explanatory letter to the authors, a correction notice (erratum or corrigendum), or revision of the manuscript before review continues.
Findings inconclusive, but doubts are substantial An expression of concern, until further evidence or an institution's findings settle the matter.
Serious misconduct (fabrication, falsification, major plagiarism, manipulated peer review) Rejection of a submitted manuscript, or retraction of a published article with a public notice stating the reason. The authors' institutions and funders are informed. The editorial board may bar the authors from submitting for a set period, up to permanently in repeated or severe cases.
Misconduct by a reviewer or editor Removal from the reviewer pool or editorial board, notification of the person's employer where appropriate, and reassignment of the manuscripts affected.

Plagiarism cases follow the sanction levels in the Plagiarism Policy. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions follow COPE's guidelines and the Post-Publication policy.

7. Appeals

Authors and others affected by a decision may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of being told of it. The appeal must state its reasons and include any new evidence.

The appeal is reviewed by panel members who took no part in the original decision. If the Editor-in-Chief made the original decision, or has a conflict of interest, an independent external advisor takes part. The decision on appeal is final and is sent in writing. Interim measures, such as an expression of concern, stay in place until the appeal is decided.

8. Records and communication

The editorial office keeps a confidential file for each case: the allegation, the evidence, the panel's notes, correspondence and the decision. Only the Editor-in-Chief and the panel can open it. Files are kept for at least five years.

The outcome is communicated to the reporter, the accused and, where appropriate, their institutions. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions are published in the journal and linked to the article. The list of authors under a submission ban is kept by the editorial office, which checks every new submission against it.

9. Prevention and policy review

The journal reduces the risk of misconduct by screening every submission for similarity, asking authors for raw data when concerns arise as its Publication Ethics statement provides, requiring conflict-of-interest declarations, and giving editors, reviewers and authors clear guidance on what to report and how.

The editorial board reviews this policy at least once a year and revises it as COPE guidance and national accreditation requirements change.

10. COPE resources and related policies