TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science

Purpose of the Policy

The purpose of this policy is to:

• Promote honest and responsible research conduct
• Provide a fair process for assessing misconduct concerns
• Protect the integrity of submitted and published research
• Ensure that authors are given an opportunity to respond
• Support appropriate editorial action where concerns are substantiated
• Maintain transparency in the scholarly record
• Protect confidential information where reasonably possible

Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to:

• Authors and co-authors
• Reviewers
• Editors
• Editorial Board members
• Editorial staff
• Submitted manuscripts
• Peer-review reports
• Editorial communications
• Published articles
• Supplementary files and research data
• Corrections, retractions, and other publication notices

Concerns arising before formal publication are handled through the applicable editorial and Article Withdrawal procedures.

Concerns arising after publication may be handled through the Corrections and Retractions Policy, Retraction Policy, or another relevant journal policy.

Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes conduct that seriously compromises the honesty, accuracy, reliability, originality, legality, or ethical acceptability of research or scholarly publication.

Possible forms of research or publication misconduct include:

• Fabrication of data, observations, participants, methods, or results
• Falsification or misleading alteration of data
• Inappropriate manipulation of images, figures, tables, or research evidence
• Plagiarism or substantial unattributed use of another person’s work
• Duplicate or redundant publication without appropriate disclosure
• Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal
• Citation manipulation
• Manipulation of the peer-review or editorial process
• Submission of fabricated reviewer identities or contact details
• Misrepresentation of authorship or contributor roles
• Gift, guest, honorary, coercive, purchased, or ghost authorship
• False or misleading institutional affiliations
• Undisclosed use of copyrighted or third-party material
• Serious copyright infringement
• Conducting or reporting research without required ethical approval
• Failure to obtain required participant consent
• Serious breach of participant privacy or confidentiality
• Intentional concealment of a significant competing interest
• Deliberate misrepresentation of funding or sponsorship
• Deliberate suppression or selective reporting of information in a manner that materially misleads readers
• Fabrication of citations or references
• Misuse of confidential manuscript or reviewer information
• Undisclosed or deceptive use of generative artificial intelligence that compromises the reliability or originality of the work
• Retaliation or improper pressure intended to influence reviewers, editors, authors, or complainants
• Other conduct that materially compromises the integrity of the research or publication process

Honest Error and Academic Disagreement

Not every error, disagreement, or methodological limitation constitutes research misconduct.

The following will not ordinarily be treated as misconduct unless accompanied by deception, concealment, recklessness, or another serious integrity concern:

• An honest calculation or transcription error
• A reasonable difference in scientific interpretation
• A scholarly disagreement regarding methods or conclusions
• A methodological limitation disclosed by the authors
• A difference in professional opinion
• An error that authors report promptly and cooperate in correcting
• Inability to reproduce a result without evidence of fabrication or falsification
• An unintentional formatting or citation error that can be corrected transparently

Where an honest error affects a published article, the journal may issue an appropriate correction without characterizing the matter as misconduct.

Principles of Research Integrity

Authors are expected to:

• Present research methods and findings honestly
• Maintain accurate research records
• Report data and results without fabrication or falsification
• Cite relevant sources appropriately
• Respect authorship and contributor requirements
• Obtain necessary ethical approvals and consent
• Protect confidential and personal information
• Disclose funding and competing interests
• Obtain permission for third-party material
• Respond accurately to editorial enquiries
• Cooperate in correcting significant errors
• Avoid conduct that manipulates the editorial or peer-review process

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, legality, and integrity of their submitted work.

When requested, authors should provide relevant information such as:

• Original or supporting research data
• Ethical approval documentation
• Participant-consent information
• Research protocols
• Image or figure source files
• Statistical or analytical records
• Authorship and contribution information
• Copyright permissions
• Funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures
• Information concerning generative AI use
• Other documentation necessary to assess a specific concern

Authors must not destroy, alter, conceal, or fabricate records after an editorial concern has been raised.

Failure to cooperate does not automatically establish misconduct, but the journal may reach an editorial decision on the basis of the information available.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

• Maintain manuscript confidentiality
• Provide independent and objective assessments
• Disclose relevant conflicts of interest
• Avoid using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage
• Avoid requesting unnecessary citations for personal benefit
• Avoid hostile, discriminatory, or personally directed comments
• Report suspected misconduct confidentially to the Editorial Office
• Avoid contacting authors directly regarding a suspected concern
• Avoid sharing manuscripts or review reports without authorization
• Avoid uploading confidential manuscript content to external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured

A reviewer must not fabricate a review, misrepresent their identity or expertise, or allow another person to complete the review without the journal’s authorization.

Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors and editorial staff must:

• Assess concerns impartially
• Protect confidential information where reasonably possible
• Distinguish allegations from confirmed findings
• Give relevant parties an opportunity to respond
• Avoid personal, institutional, financial, or professional conflicts of interest
• Base editorial actions on available evidence
• Avoid premature or defamatory conclusions
• Protect the accuracy of the scholarly record
• Apply relevant journal policies consistently

An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not control the assessment or final decision.

The matter should be transferred to another suitably qualified editor who can conduct an independent evaluation.

Reporting a Misconduct Concern

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, or other concerned persons may report possible misconduct to the Editorial Office.

A report should include, where available:

• Manuscript or article title
• Author name or names
• Manuscript identification number
• DOI or article webpage link
• Volume, issue, and publication year
• Clear description of the concern
• Relevant evidence or supporting documentation
• Source of the information
• Name and contact details of the person reporting the concern

Concerns should be submitted in a factual and professional manner.

Anonymous Allegations

The journal may consider an anonymous allegation where it contains sufficient, specific, and verifiable information.

Anonymous status does not automatically invalidate a concern. However, the journal may be unable to proceed where:

• The allegation is vague
• No supporting evidence is provided
• Relevant information cannot be verified
• Further clarification is required but the complainant cannot be contacted

Unsupported allegations alone will not be treated as proof of misconduct.

Initial Assessment

The Editorial Office will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

• Whether the concern falls within the journal’s responsibility
• Whether the manuscript or article can be identified
• Whether sufficient information has been supplied
• Whether the matter concerns an error, misconduct, authorship, copyright, ethical approval, peer review, or another issue
• Whether immediate editorial action is required
• Whether further clarification or evidence is necessary
• Whether another journal policy is more directly applicable

The journal may close a matter where the allegation is clearly unsupported, outside its scope, or lacks enough information for meaningful assessment.

Such closure does not prevent reconsideration if relevant new evidence becomes available.

Assessment Procedure

Where further assessment is required, the journal may:

• Contact the corresponding author
• Contact all listed authors where appropriate
• Request an explanation or written response
• Request original data or supporting records
• Review manuscript and peer-review records
• Examine relevant correspondence
• Request ethical approval or consent documentation
• Request copyright or permission records
• Seek independent subject, statistical, technical, or ethical advice
• Contact an affiliated institution
• Contact a funding organisation, rights holder, data custodian, or other relevant party
• Review whether the editorial or peer-review process was compromised

The journal will seek information relevant to the specific concern and will avoid unnecessary collection or disclosure of unrelated personal information.

Opportunity to Respond

Authors or other persons directly affected by an allegation will normally be given an opportunity to respond before a final editorial decision is made.

The request for response should identify the general nature of the concern and the information required.

A response should be factual and supported by relevant documentation where possible.

Failure to respond within a reasonable period may result in the journal proceeding on the basis of the information available.

The journal may take immediate interim action without first contacting all parties where necessary to address a serious legal, confidentiality, privacy, security, or public-safety concern.

Interim Editorial Measures

While a serious concern is being assessed, the journal may:

• Suspend manuscript processing
• Delay an editorial decision
• Pause publication of an accepted manuscript
• Request additional documentation
• Replace a reviewer or editor
• Restrict access to confidential material
• Publish an Expression of Concern for a published article where readers require notification
• Take another temporary measure necessary to protect the integrity of the process

Pre-Publication Outcomes

Where a concern affects an unpublished manuscript, the journal may:

• Require clarification
• Require correction of the manuscript
• Require an updated disclosure
• Request revised authorship information
• Request additional ethical or legal documentation
• Continue peer review after the concern is resolved
• Suspend editorial consideration
• Reject the manuscript
• Withdraw an accepted manuscript before publication
• Refer the concern to an appropriate institution or responsible authority

The appropriate action will depend on the nature of the concern, available evidence, and stage of processing.

Post-Publication Outcomes

Where a concern affects a published article, the journal may:

• Take no further action where the concern is not substantiated
• Publish a clarification
• Publish a correction
• Correct a disclosure statement
• Publish an Expression of Concern
• Retract the article
• Remove content only in exceptional legal, privacy, confidentiality, security, or safety circumstances
• Update the article webpage and applicable metadata
• Notify relevant institutions or services where appropriate
• Take another action necessary to correct the scholarly record

Post-publication action will be handled according to the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy and Retraction Policy.

Confirmed Research Misconduct

The journal will describe misconduct as confirmed only where the available evidence supports that conclusion.

A confirmed finding may be based on:

• Clear documentary evidence
• Admission by the responsible person
• Reliable original records
• Findings communicated by a responsible institution
• Independent technical or academic assessment
• Other credible and verifiable evidence

The journal should avoid public statements that exceed the available evidence.

Where responsibility cannot be reliably attributed to a particular author, the journal should avoid assigning individual blame without sufficient evidence.

Institutional Investigation

TJTHS is responsible for managing the editorial status of submitted and published work.

The journal does not generally have the authority to conduct employment, disciplinary, laboratory, or institutional investigations.

Where appropriate, the journal may refer a concern to:

• An author’s institution
• A reviewer’s institution
• A funding organisation
• An ethics committee
• A research-integrity office
• A copyright holder
• Another responsible authority

The journal may request information about the outcome where it is relevant to the manuscript or published article.

An institutional decision does not automatically determine the journal’s editorial action. The journal will assess how the findings affect the reliability and status of the scholarly record.

Misconduct by Reviewers or Editors

Concerns may also involve reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, or editorial staff.

Possible concerns include:

• Breach of confidentiality
• Undisclosed competing interests
• Misuse of unpublished information
• Reviewer impersonation
• Fabricated peer-review reports
• Coercive citation requests
• Discriminatory or abusive conduct
• Improper influence over editorial decisions
• Manipulation of reviewer selection
• Unauthorized use of generative AI with confidential manuscript material
• Other conduct compromising an independent editorial process

Where such concerns arise, the journal may:

• Remove the individual from handling the manuscript
• Disregard the affected review
• Obtain a new independent review
• Reassess an editorial decision
• Restrict future editorial or reviewing assignments
• Correct the scholarly record where necessary
• Contact an institution or other responsible body where appropriate

Any action should be based on the seriousness of the concern and available evidence.

Confidentiality

Research-misconduct concerns will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible during assessment.

Relevant information may be shared with:

• Authors
• Editors
• Reviewers
• Independent experts
• Affiliated institutions
• Funding organisations
• Ethics committees
• Copyright holders
• Legal advisers
• Other responsible parties

Information should be shared only where reasonably necessary to assess or resolve the concern.

Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required by law or is necessary to protect research participants, readers, or the scholarly record.

Protection of Good-Faith Reporting

A person who raises a concern in good faith should not be dismissed solely because the concern is ultimately unsubstantiated.

The journal will distinguish between:

• A good-faith concern supported by reasonable information
• An honest misunderstanding
• A repetitive unsupported complaint
• A knowingly false, malicious, threatening, or abusive allegation

Knowingly false allegations may themselves raise ethical or legal concerns.

The journal should not publicly identify a complainant unless disclosure is required or the complainant has consented, subject to applicable responsibilities.

Correction of the Scholarly Record

The principal purpose of editorial action is to ensure that readers receive accurate information about the status and reliability of published work.

Where a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction is issued:

• The notice should clearly identify the affected article
• The notice should state the reason for the action
• The notice should distinguish established findings from unresolved allegations
• The article and notice should be linked where technically possible
• The current status of the article should be visible
• Relevant metadata should be updated where applicable
• The original publication history should not be silently concealed

Editorial action is intended to correct the scholarly record and is not primarily intended as punishment.

Records of Misconduct Assessments

The journal may retain confidential records relating to:

• Allegations
• Supporting evidence
• Author responses
• Reviewer or editor statements
• Institutional correspondence
• Expert assessments
• Editorial decisions
• Corrections, retractions, or other notices

Records will be retained for editorial administration, accountability, and protection of the scholarly record.

Access will be limited to authorized persons with a legitimate role in the matter.

Appeals

An author or other directly affected person may submit an appeal against a misconduct-related editorial decision.

The appeal should:

• Identify the manuscript or article
• Identify the decision being challenged
• Explain the specific factual or procedural concern
• Provide relevant supporting evidence
• Identify significant new information not previously considered
• Be written in a professional and factual manner

Disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Where reasonably possible, an appeal should be considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other editorial action.

Relationship with Other Policies

This Research Misconduct Policy should be read together with the journal’s:

• Publication Ethics Policy
• Plagiarism Policy
• Authorship Criteria
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Peer Review Policy
• Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy
• Data Availability Policy
• Copyright and Licensing Policy
• Article Withdrawal Policy
• Corrections and Retractions Policy
• Complaints and Appeals Policy

Policy Review

TJTHS may review and revise this Research Misconduct Policy when changes are required in its editorial procedures, research practices, publication operations, or legal and ethical responsibilities.

Any revised version will be made available through the official journal website.

Editorial Office