Research Misconduct

Research Integrity

Research Misconduct and Allegation Handling

Journal of Accounting and Management (JAM) · e-ISSN 3048-345X

JAM assesses allegations fairly, confidentially, independently, and on verifiable evidence. The journal protects the scholarly record but does not replace an institution, employer, ethics committee, funder, regulator, or court in determining employment or legal sanctions.

1. Scope

This policy applies to submitted and published material and covers suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, manipulated images, citation manipulation, manipulated peer review, fabricated identities or approvals, undisclosed competing interests, authorship abuse, unethical research, consent or privacy violations, misuse of confidential material, and undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative artificial intelligence.

Similarity and AI-detection scores are screening indicators only. They are not automatic proof of misconduct and do not replace expert assessment and due process.

2. Reporting an Allegation

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, and other parties may report a concern through the official journal contact page. Use the subject Research Integrity Allegation and provide:

  • the manuscript ID or article title, publication details, and DOI;
  • the specific allegation and exact location of the questioned material;
  • supporting documents, data, images, source comparisons, correspondence, or other verifiable evidence;
  • any relevant relationship or competing interest; and
  • the reporter's identity and contact details, unless anonymity is reasonably required.

Anonymous reports may be assessed when sufficiently specific and verifiable. JAM will not disadvantage a person for raising a concern in good faith. Deliberately fabricated evidence, threats, or harassment may be handled separately.

3. Assessment and Investigation Workflow

1. Receipt and triage A sufficiently identified report is normally acknowledged within seven working days. The editor assesses specificity, urgency, article status, jurisdiction, conflicts, and immediate risk.
2. Independence Anyone involved in the work, allegation, or disputed decision is recused. An unconflicted editor or publisher representative is assigned.
3. Evidence preservation JAM preserves manuscript versions, submission metadata, files, reviews, correspondence, similarity reports, data supplied, and relevant audit records.
4. Notice and response The affected author or party normally receives the material concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond and provide records. Disclosure may be limited where necessary to protect privacy, safety, law, or an external investigation.
5. Independent advice The handler may seek unconflicted methodological, statistical, accounting, image, ethics, legal, or technical advice.
6. External referral Matters requiring access to laboratories, employment records, participants, original systems, or formal investigative authority may be referred to the relevant institution, employer, ethics committee, funder, regulator, or other competent body.
7. Reasoned decision The Editor-in-Chief or independent handler decides the journal action based on evidence strength, reliability, materiality, proportionality, author roles, and effect on the record.
8. Record and follow-up The decision, evidence, conflicts, correspondence, referrals, and implemented action are documented. Long-running cases are reviewed periodically and parties receive proportionate status updates.

4. Possible Outcomes

Before publication: no action; clarification or documentation request; revision and rescreening; rejection; reviewer or editor replacement; submission restriction when proportionate and reasoned; or referral to another journal or competent institution.

After publication: no action; scientific correspondence; correction; Expression of Concern; retraction; exceptional content removal; metadata update; or institutional referral. The remedy is governed by the relevant dedicated post-publication policy.

5. Confidentiality, Records, and Appeals

Information is restricted to persons who need it for fair assessment, subject to legal and research-integrity duties. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed when disclosure is necessary for due process, safety, or competent investigation. Records are retained securely according to institutional retention and privacy requirements.

A directly affected party may appeal a material factual error, overlooked evidence, unmanaged conflict, or serious procedural defect under the Appeals and Complaints Policy. Disagreement with a reasoned academic judgment alone is insufficient.

Policy boundary: this page governs allegations and their assessment. It does not duplicate similarity-screening instructions, research-data access rules, authorship criteria, scientific discussion, or the formal requirements for correction, Expression of Concern, and retraction notices.
Policy owner: Editorial Board, Journal of Accounting and Management (JAM) · Policy version: August 2026 · Reference frameworks: COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.