Research Misconduct Policy

Research or publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

• Plagiarism or substantial unattributed use of another person's work
• Fabrication or falsification of data
• Manipulation of figures or images in a misleading manner
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals
• Citation manipulation
• Authorship manipulation or inappropriate authorship attribution
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Misrepresentation of ethical approval or informed consent
• Manipulation of the peer-review process
• Misuse of confidential manuscript or reviewer information
• Deliberate misrepresentation of research methods, results, or conclusions
• Other conduct that may compromise the integrity of the scholarly record

JDDIEA may conduct appropriate checks during editorial assessment, including:

• Originality and similarity screening
• Examination of references and citations
• Review of figures, tables, and data where concerns arise
• Verification of ethical approval or consent where relevant
• Requests for underlying data, documentation, or clarification
• Review of authorship and conflict-of-interest declarations

A similarity score alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred. Similarity reports are evaluated in context.

Concerns regarding suspected research or publication misconduct may be reported to: editor@jddiea.com

Reports should, where possible, include:

• Article or manuscript title
• Manuscript ID or DOI, if available
• Names of the relevant authors or parties
• Description of the concern
• Supporting evidence or documentation

Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficient specific and verifiable information.

When an allegation is received, the journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether:

• The concern falls within the journal's responsibility
• Sufficient information exists to justify further examination
• Immediate action is required to protect the integrity of the editorial or published record

The journal will avoid making premature conclusions before relevant information has been assessed.

Where further examination is appropriate, JDDIEA may:

• Contact the corresponding author or other authors for an explanation
• Request original data, source files, ethics documents, or other supporting materials
• Consult relevant editors or independent experts
• Seek clarification from institutions, employers, funding bodies, or other journals
• Review related publications or submissions where necessary

Individuals with a relevant conflict of interest should not be responsible for determining the outcome of the case.

JDDIEA recognises that journals generally do not have the authority or resources to conduct full institutional investigations into research misconduct.

Where an allegation requires investigation beyond the journal's role, the journal may refer the matter to the author's institution, employer, funding organisation, ethics committee, or another appropriate authority.

JDDIEA may cooperate with institutional investigations while respecting applicable confidentiality requirements.

Allegations and investigations will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will normally be shared only with individuals or organisations whose involvement is necessary to evaluate or resolve the matter.

The journal will seek to protect both individuals raising genuine concerns in good faith and individuals who are the subject of allegations while the matter remains unresolved.

Where serious concerns arise regarding a manuscript that has not yet been published, JDDIEA may:

• Pause editorial processing
• Request clarification or evidence from the authors
• Obtain additional expert review
• Reject or withdraw the manuscript from consideration
• Notify the relevant institution or authority where appropriate

A manuscript may be rejected where the available evidence demonstrates serious misconduct or a substantial breach of journal policy.

If concerns arise after publication, JDDIEA will assess whether the reliability or integrity of the published record has been affected.

Depending on the findings, the journal may:

• Publish a correction
• Publish an editorial notice
• Issue an expression of concern
• Retract the article
• Update the article record where appropriate

Any post-publication action should clearly identify the affected article and explain the reason for the action while respecting appropriate confidentiality and legal considerations.

An expression of concern may be issued when serious questions exist about a published article but:

• An investigation remains incomplete
• Relevant institutions have not yet reached a conclusion
• Evidence is inconclusive but significant concerns remain
• A final determination cannot reasonably be made immediately

The notice may later be replaced or supplemented by a correction, retraction, or other editorial action.

Retraction may be considered where findings or conclusions are no longer reliable because of serious error or misconduct, including cases involving:

• Fabricated or falsified data
• Serious plagiarism
• Unethical research
• Duplicate publication
• Fraudulent peer review
• Other substantial violations affecting the integrity of the article

Retraction is intended primarily to correct the scholarly record rather than to punish authors.

Authors are expected to cooperate with legitimate requests relating to publication-ethics investigations.

Failure to provide requested information may be taken into account when the journal evaluates the reliability of the manuscript or published work.

Allegations concerning reviewers or editors, including:

• Breach of confidentiality
• Misuse of unpublished research
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Manipulation of editorial decisions
• Inappropriate reviewer conduct

An individual who is the subject of an allegation will not determine the outcome of their own case.

JDDIEA does not tolerate attempts to manipulate the peer-review process. This may include:

• False reviewer identities
• Fabricated reviewer accounts
• Undisclosed author-reviewer relationships
• Attempts to influence reviewer selection improperly
• Submission of fraudulent review reports
• Other deliberate interference with independent peer review

Where manipulation is confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected or a published article may be subject to appropriate corrective action.

JDDIEA encourages genuine concerns to be raised in good faith.

The journal will not dismiss a concern solely because it is inconvenient or critical of an author, reviewer, editor, or the journal itself.

Knowingly false, malicious, or abusive allegations may be handled separately where appropriate.

Authors or other involved parties may appeal an editorial decision arising from a misconduct case in accordance with the JDDIEA Complaints & Appeals Policy.

An appeal should identify a relevant factual, procedural, or evidentiary issue rather than simply express disagreement with the outcome.

Where appropriate, JDDIEA will follow recognised publication-ethics guidance, including principles and procedures developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), while considering the circumstances of each individual case.