ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
ESCALATE | PUBLICATION ETHICS
Allegations of
Research Misconduct.
A transparent, fair, and responsible framework for identifying, reporting, investigating, and addressing suspected research and publication misconduct while protecting the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
RESEARCH INTEGRITY COPE-ALIGNED GUIDANCE FAIR EDITORIAL PROCESS
Escalate: Economics and Business Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, editorial independence, and responsible scholarly publishing. The journal recognizes that the credibility of academic literature depends on the accuracy, originality, reliability, and ethical conduct of research.
The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern manuscripts under editorial consideration or articles that have already been published. Suspected misconduct may be reported by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, or other individuals possessing relevant information.
In responding to such allegations, the Editorial Team follows procedures informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), with an emphasis on procedural fairness, appropriate confidentiality, evidence-based assessment, cooperation with relevant institutions, and the preservation of the scholarly record.
ⓘ Fundamental Editorial Principle
An allegation of research misconduct does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred. All concerns must be evaluated objectively, fairly, and proportionately. Authors and other individuals concerned must be given an appropriate opportunity to respond before conclusions or editorial actions are determined, except where immediate protective steps are necessary.
EXPLORE THE POLICY
01 / RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Definition of Research Misconduct
Understanding unacceptable conduct in scholarly research and publication.
Research misconduct generally refers to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. These practices undermine the accuracy, credibility, reproducibility, and trustworthiness of scholarly findings.
In addition to these principal forms of research misconduct, the journal considers other serious breaches of publication ethics, including citation manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and unauthorized use of research data or intellectual contributions.
These concerns may arise during research design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial evaluation, or post-publication scholarly communication.
Distinguishing Misconduct from Honest Error
Honest errors, unintentional mistakes, or legitimate differences in scholarly interpretation or judgment do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Nevertheless, significant errors that compromise published findings may require appropriate correction or retraction, regardless of whether intentional misconduct occurred.
02 / PROHIBITED PRACTICES
Types of Research and Publication Misconduct
Common forms of research misconduct and serious publication ethics violations.
CORE RESEARCH MISCONDUCT / 01
Data Fabrication
Fabrication involves inventing research data, observations, experimental outcomes, survey responses, interviews, statistical results, or other findings and recording or reporting them as genuine research evidence.
Example: Reporting survey responses from participants who were never surveyed or presenting fictional financial observations as authentic research data.
CORE RESEARCH MISCONDUCT / 02
Data Falsification
Falsification involves manipulating research materials, procedures, instruments, datasets, or results, including changing or omitting information in a manner that causes the research record to misrepresent the actual findings.
Example: Intentionally modifying financial data or selectively removing unfavorable observations to produce misleading statistical results.
CORE RESEARCH MISCONDUCT / 03
Plagiarism
Plagiarism involves presenting another person's ideas, words, research processes, findings, intellectual contributions, or other protected scholarly material without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution.
Example: Reproducing substantial passages, theoretical arguments, research designs, or analytical findings from another publication without proper citation.
Other Serious Publication Ethics Violations
Citation Manipulation
Deliberately manipulating citations to artificially increase citation counts, influence bibliometric indicators, or serve inappropriate personal, editorial, or institutional interests rather than legitimate scholarly relevance.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research as a new scholarly contribution without appropriate disclosure, acknowledgment, justification, or permission where required.
Authorship Misrepresentation
Including individuals who do not meet applicable authorship requirements, excluding qualifying contributors, or misrepresenting authorship contributions, identities, or affiliations.
Peer-Review Manipulation
Interfering with the impartiality or authenticity of peer review, including falsified reviewer identities, fabricated reviews, undisclosed coordinated reviewing arrangements, or inappropriate interference with editorial decisions.
Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest
Failing to disclose financial, professional, personal, or institutional interests when such omissions may undermine the transparency, independence, or integrity of research and editorial evaluation.
Unauthorized Data Use and Ethical Non-Compliance
Using confidential or restricted research materials without appropriate authorization, violating applicable research ethics requirements, or misrepresenting ethical approval, participant consent, or data provenance.
03 / REPORTING MECHANISM
Reporting Allegations of Misconduct
A responsible and evidence-based procedure for raising concerns.
Any individual who has reasonable grounds to suspect research or publication misconduct involving a manuscript submitted to, or an article published by, Escalate: Economics and Business Journal may submit a concern to the Editorial Office.
Reports should be made in good faith and should provide sufficiently specific information to allow an objective preliminary assessment. The Editorial Team may consider reports from identified or anonymous complainants, although the availability of supporting evidence may affect the scope of assessment.
Recommended Information in a Report
01. Article title, manuscript identification number, DOI, or publication URL, where available.
02. A clear description of the alleged misconduct or research irregularity.
03. Supporting documents, data, relevant publications, or other verifiable evidence, where available and lawfully shareable.
04. Identification of the specific findings, passages, figures, tables, citations, or research procedures in question.
05. Contact information for further correspondence, where the complainant is willing to provide it, and disclosure of any relevant conflicts of interest.
Good-Faith Reporting
The journal encourages responsible reporting of genuine research integrity concerns. Allegations should not be submitted for harassment, retaliation, competitive advantage, or other improper purposes. An allegation that cannot be substantiated is not, by itself, evidence that the complainant acted in bad faith.
04 / EDITORIAL PROCEDURE
Assessment and Investigation Process
A structured framework for impartial evaluation and appropriate editorial action.
01
Receipt and Preliminary Assessment
The Editorial Team reviews the reported concern to determine its relevance, specificity, available supporting evidence, and relationship to research or publication misconduct. Potential conflicts of interest involving complainants or individuals handling the case are also assessed.
02
Evidence Evaluation
Available documentation may be examined, including submitted manuscripts, published articles, datasets, similarity reports, research records, figures, citations, and editorial correspondence. The journal may seek independent technical or subject-specific advice when appropriate.
03
Notification and Author Response
Where concerns warrant further assessment, the corresponding author or other relevant individuals may be contacted and invited to provide a detailed written explanation, clarification, supporting data, or documentary evidence. Authors should have a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
04
Further Review and Independent Evaluation
The Editorial Team may request additional explanations, technical assessments, statistical evaluations, or expert opinions. The review must consider the evidence fairly and distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error, methodological disagreement, or insufficiently supported allegations.
05
Institutional Consultation or Referral
Where substantial concerns require a formal investigation beyond the journal's authority or expertise, the Editorial Team may contact the relevant research institution, university, employer, or appropriate research integrity body. The journal may cooperate with institutional inquiries and provide relevant supporting information subject to confidentiality and applicable requirements.
06
Editorial Determination
Following consideration of the available evidence, author responses, expert advice, and relevant institutional findings, the journal determines the appropriate editorial response. Decisions must be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and its effect on the reliability of the scholarly record.
07
Communication and Follow-Up
Relevant parties are informed of the outcome as appropriate, subject to confidentiality and privacy considerations. Where necessary, the journal implements corrections, editorial notices, or retractions and ensures that the published record is updated transparently.
Institutional and Editorial Responsibilities
Research institutions generally have primary responsibility for conducting formal investigations into the conduct of their researchers. The journal is responsible for evaluating concerns affecting its editorial process and published content and for taking appropriate steps to safeguard the scholarly record. A journal's editorial assessment does not replace a formal institutional investigation.
05 / EDITORIAL DECISIONS
Possible Editorial Actions and Outcomes
Proportionate actions based on the nature and severity of substantiated concerns.
BEFORE PUBLICATION
Actions Concerning Submitted Manuscripts
When an allegation concerns a manuscript under editorial consideration, the journal may take one or more appropriate actions, depending on the findings:
01. Request clarification, supporting documentation, or corrections from the authors.
02. Temporarily suspend or delay editorial processing while significant concerns are assessed.
03. Seek additional peer review or independent methodological assessment.
04. Reject a manuscript where serious misconduct or unacceptable publication practices are sufficiently substantiated.
05. Refer serious concerns to relevant institutions or research integrity authorities when appropriate.
AFTER PUBLICATION
Actions Concerning Published Articles
Where concerns affect published research, the journal may undertake the following actions in accordance with the severity of the problem and applicable editorial guidance.
Correction Notice
A correction may be issued when an identifiable error requires amendment but the main findings and conclusions remain sufficiently reliable. The correction should clearly describe the changes and be linked to the original article.
Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be issued where credible, serious questions about an article's reliability remain unresolved, an investigation is ongoing, or available evidence is inconclusive. The notice should describe the concern without presenting an unsubstantiated allegation as a confirmed finding.
Retraction
Retraction may be necessary when significant evidence demonstrates that published findings are unreliable or that serious ethical or publication irregularities undermine the validity of the article. The retraction notice should explain the basis of the decision, remain publicly accessible, and link clearly to the original article.
Clarification or No Further Action
Where concerns are satisfactorily explained or are not supported by available evidence, the journal may conclude the assessment without corrective publication action. A clarification may be requested or published when it would meaningfully improve readers' understanding of the research.
Preserving the Scholarly Record
The purpose of correcting or retracting an article is to protect the accuracy and integrity of scholarly literature rather than to punish authors. The journal seeks to preserve appropriate links between original publications and subsequent notices, provide transparent explanations for editorial actions, and distinguish honest error from substantiated misconduct whenever possible.
06 / PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
Confidentiality, Fairness, and Protection
Safeguarding the rights and legitimate interests of all parties.
Confidential Handling of Allegations
Reports, evidence, editorial correspondence, and investigation-related information should be handled with appropriate discretion. Information will be shared only as reasonably necessary for assessment, institutional cooperation, compliance with applicable obligations, or protection of the scholarly record. Absolute anonymity or confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance.
Impartiality and Conflict-of-Interest Management
Editors and other individuals responsible for evaluating allegations must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and should not participate in decisions where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Cases involving an editor may be referred to another appropriately independent editor or publisher representative.
Right to Respond
Individuals subject to substantial allegations should receive a fair opportunity to provide explanations, supporting information, or relevant evidence. Editorial decisions must consider the available information carefully and avoid premature judgments of misconduct.
Good-Faith Complainants
The journal does not support intimidation, harassment, or retaliation against individuals who raise legitimate concerns in good faith. Similarly, individuals accused of misconduct must be treated fairly and should not be publicly characterized as responsible for misconduct before the evidence warrants such a conclusion.
Documentation and Recordkeeping
The journal should maintain appropriate records of allegations, evidence reviewed, communications, and editorial determinations, with access restricted to individuals who have a legitimate role in the process. Such records support accountability and consistent handling of publication ethics concerns.
07 / SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibilities of Authors, Editors, and Institutions
Coordinated responsibilities for protecting research integrity.
Responsibilities of Authors
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their research, the proper acknowledgment of scholarly sources, accurate reporting of methodological procedures, appropriate ethical disclosures, and cooperation in the resolution of legitimate concerns. When significant errors are discovered, authors should promptly inform the Editorial Office.
Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for responding appropriately to credible publication ethics concerns, evaluating editorial evidence, protecting confidentiality where appropriate, coordinating with relevant institutions, and determining necessary actions to safeguard the published scholarly record.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Peer reviewers should notify the Editorial Office when they identify possible plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated evidence, unethical research procedures, significant reporting irregularities, or other serious concerns. Reviewers must respect manuscript confidentiality and avoid conducting unauthorized independent investigations.
Responsibilities of Research Institutions
Universities, research organizations, and other relevant institutions are generally responsible for conducting formal inquiries into allegations concerning the conduct of affiliated researchers. Institutions are encouraged to cooperate with journals, share appropriate findings, and support necessary measures to protect the scholarly record.
08 / REVIEW AND FOLLOW-UP
Requests for Reconsideration and Follow-Up
Ensuring proportionality and accountability in editorial determinations.
Authors or other directly affected parties may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration when they believe that a material factual error, relevant evidence, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest has affected an editorial determination.
Requests should identify the specific decision under consideration and include any supporting information. Where appropriate, the matter may be reviewed by an editor or publisher representative who was not directly involved in the original decision.
Where new evidence becomes available after a case has been closed, the journal may reassess the matter and take further action as necessary. The journal seeks to address concerns without unnecessary delay, although the duration of individual cases may depend on their complexity, institutional investigations, and the availability of evidence.
09 / EDITORIAL CONTACT
Report a Research Integrity Concern
Submit evidence-based concerns directly to the Editorial Office.
OFFICIAL EDITORIAL CONTACT
Escalate: Economics and Business Journal
Concerns involving suspected research misconduct, publication ethics violations, or the reliability of published scholarly content may be communicated to the Editorial Office.
EDITORIAL EMAIL
Please provide a concise description of the concern and any relevant supporting evidence. Do not send confidential research data or sensitive personal information unless an appropriate and secure method of transfer has been arranged.
10 / PUBLICATION INTEGRITY
Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record
Escalate: Economics and Business Journal recognizes that authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and research institutions share responsibility for maintaining the accuracy, credibility, and trustworthiness of scholarly communication.
By responding appropriately to allegations of research misconduct, evaluating concerns through fair and evidence-based procedures, cooperating with relevant institutions, and implementing necessary corrections or retractions, the journal seeks to preserve public confidence in published research and support responsible scholarly publishing in economics, management, business, accounting, and related disciplines.
INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES
References and Ethical Guidance
Resources supporting responsible handling of research and publication misconduct.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
View International Guidance ↗COPE Retraction Guidelines
Guidance on retractions, correction of the scholarly record, transparency, and the responsibilities of journal editors.
View Retraction Guidelines ↗COPE Guidance on Institutional Cooperation
Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases.
View Institutional Guidance ↗University of Oregon Research Integrity
Allegations of Research Misconduct: definitions, integrity principles, and institutional research responsibility.
View Research Integrity Resource ↗Related Journal Policies
Further information on research integrity, editorial standards, and post-publication procedures.
RESPONSIBLE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
Protecting Research Integrity
Integrity, transparency, accountability, and independent editorial judgment are fundamental to credible scholarly publishing. Escalate encourages responsible research conduct and the reporting of legitimate publication ethics concerns.
Contact the Editorial Office →Escalate: Economics and Business Journal
Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy
Research Integrity • Publication Ethics • Editorial Accountability
E-ISSN: 3025-4213
Published by Takaza Innovatix Labs Ltd.
Official Journal Website ↗
