Research Misconduct Investigation Procedure

JPDMHD takes all allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously. This procedure applies to submissions under review and to published articles.

Categories of Misconduct

  • Fabrication: Inventing data or results
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or altering data
  • Plagiarism: Presenting another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without appropriate attribution
  • Duplicate/redundant publication: Submitting the same work to more than one journal simultaneously, or publishing substantially overlapping content without disclosure
  • Image manipulation: Altering images in a way that misrepresents the data
  • Authorship disputes: Guest, ghost, or gift authorship; failure to include a legitimate contributor
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest: See Conflicts of Interest Policy
  • Ethical violations: Research conducted without required ethical approval or informed consent

Raising an Allegation

Allegations may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, or institutions. Contact: editor.jpdmhd@gmail.com. All allegations will be treated confidentially pending investigation.

Investigation Steps

The editor will follow the applicable COPE flowchart (publicationethics.org/flowcharts). The general steps are:

  1. Initial assessment: Is the allegation within scope? Is it supported by initial evidence?
  2. Notification: The corresponding author (and co-authors if appropriate) is informed and given 15 business days to respond.
  3. Evidence review: The editor reviews the manuscript, peer review files, author responses, and any supporting material.
  4. Decision: The editor determines whether misconduct occurred and decides on appropriate action (see 6.4).
  5. Institutional referral: If the allegation involves serious misconduct, the editor will contact the authors' institution(s).

Possible Outcomes

  • Rejection of the submitted manuscript
  • Retraction or correction of a published article
  • Publication of an expression of concern pending institutional investigation
  • Formal notification to the authors' institutions
  • Referral of the case to COPE for guidance
  • No action if the allegation is not substantiated