Research Misconduct

Jurnal Pendidikan Karakter (JPKA) takes every credible allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether it concerns a manuscript under consideration or an article published years ago. Allegations are handled confidentially and in accordance with the flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

▣ What Is Treated as Misconduct

  • Fabrication — inventing data, results, or participants.
  • Falsification — manipulating data, images, instruments, or findings so that the research is not accurately represented; omitting inconvenient results.
  • Plagiarism — in any of the forms set out in the Plagiarism Policy.
  • Duplicate submission or publication — submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time, or republishing substantially the same work without disclosure.
  • Salami publication — dividing one study into several papers without new contribution in each.
  • Authorship violations — gift, guest, or ghost authorship, or changing the author list without the agreement of all authors.
  • Ethical breaches — research conducted without the required approval or consent, or exposing the identity of participants.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest, funding, or use of generative AI.
  • Citation manipulation and peer review manipulation, including suggesting fictitious reviewers or supplying false contact details.
  • Paper mills — submitting work produced or sold by a third party.

↻ Procedure

  1. Raising a concern. Write to the editorial office at jpk@uny.ac.id, naming the article and setting out the specific grounds, with any supporting evidence. Anonymous allegations are considered where the evidence is sufficient to assess on its own.
  2. Confidentiality. The matter is kept confidential, and the identity of the person raising the concern is protected and not disclosed to the authors without consent.
  3. Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief examines the concern and gathers the relevant evidence, including the similarity report and the submission record. A concern found to be unsubstantiated is closed, and the person who raised it is informed.
  4. Right of reply. The corresponding author is informed of the allegation and given 30 days to respond. The response is considered before any decision is taken.
  5. Escalation. Where the matter is serious, unresolved, or disputed, the authors' institution or the relevant research integrity body is informed and asked to investigate. The journal does not itself conduct investigations into researchers.
  6. Outcome and record. The decision and its reasons are communicated to the authors and to the person who raised the concern. Where the published record is affected, a notice is published.

⚠ Possible Outcomes

▸ For a manuscript under consideration
Rejection; a requirement to correct the manuscript before any further consideration; or, in serious cases, notification of the authors' institution.
 ▸ For a published article
A correction notice; an expression of concern while an investigation is under way; or retraction. The article itself is never removed.
▸ For the authors
A requirement to correct the record; notification of their institution and, where relevant, their funder; and a bar on submissions to the journal for a stated period.
 ▸ Where no misconduct is found
The matter is closed, and the article stands unchanged. An allegation that is not upheld leaves no mark on the published record.

⚖ Fairness

An allegation is not a finding. Authors are presumed to have acted in good faith until the evidence shows otherwise, honest error is distinguished from deliberate misconduct, and no action affecting the published record is taken before the authors have been given the opportunity to respond. Allegations made in bad faith, or used to harass, are themselves treated as a breach of these standards.

See also the Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, and Correction and Retraction.