Allegation of research misconduct

1. Definition and Scope of Misconduct

INSIGHT: Jurnal Pemikiran dan Penelitian Psikologi takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct with the utmost seriousness to safeguard the integrity of psychological science. Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Plagiarism and Text Recycling: Presenting another author's ideas, text, or findings as one's own, or verbatim reuse of the author's own published text without appropriate citation or justification.

  • Data Fabrication and Falsification: Inventing data, manipulating research figures, or altering empirical findings to falsify conclusions.

  • Authorship Misconduct: Inclusion of ghost, guest, or gift authors, or excluding contributors who made substantial intellectual contributions.

  • Ethical Breaches in Human Subject Research: Conducting studies without appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee approval, or failing to obtain informed consent from human participants.

  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to report financial, institutional, or personal competing interests.

(Source: COPE Core Practices: Allegations of misconduct & COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing)

2. Procedure for Raising an Allegation

Anyone (authors, peer reviewers, readers, or editorial board members) who suspects research or publication misconduct in a manuscript submitted to or published by INSIGHT: Jurnal Pemikiran dan Penelitian Psikologi should raise their concern with the Editorial Office.

  1. Submitting a Complaint: Allegations must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief via email, accompanied by specific evidence (e.g., side-by-side text comparisons, dataset discrepancies, or documentation of missing ethical approvals).

  2. Confidentiality: The journal maintains strict confidentiality regarding the identity of the whistleblower and the subject of the investigation throughout the inquiry, protecting all parties against premature public allegations.

(Source: COPE Flowchart: Handling Allegations of Misconduct & COPE Core Practices: Allegations of misconduct)

3. Investigation and Editorial Response Workflow

The Editorial Board follows structured, impartial investigation procedures based on official COPE flowcharts:

  1. Preliminary Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the initial evidence to determine whether a formal inquiry is warranted. If the allegation lacks supporting evidence or appears frivolous, it will be dismissed.

  2. Contacting the Respondent: If the claim has merit, the editor contacts the corresponding author or reviewer, providing the details of the concern and requesting a formal explanation within a designated timeframe (typically 14–30 days).

  3. Institutional Escalation: If the authors fail to provide a satisfactory response or if severe data manipulation is suspected, the Editor may escalate the matter to the authors' affiliated institution or funding body for an official institutional investigation.

  4. Resolution and Sanctions: Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the journal may take actions including:

    • Rejection of the manuscript (if currently under review).

    • Refusal to accept future submissions from the involved authors for a specified period.

    • Formal notification sent to the authors' institutional leaders or ethics committee.

    • Issuance of a formal Erratum/Correction, Expression of Concern, or Article Retraction in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.

(Source: COPE Flowcharts on Suspected Misconduct & COPE Retraction Guidelines)

4. Protection Against Whistleblower Retaliation

  • The journal is committed to protecting whistleblowers who raise genuine concerns in good faith.

  • Unfounded, malicious, or defamatory allegations raised with the intent to harm an author's reputation will be dismissed, and appropriate action may be taken against the bad-faith complainant.