Allegation of research misconduct

Tarbawi: Jurnal Studi Pendidikan Islami is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal takes allegations of research misconduct seriously, whether they concern submitted manuscripts or published articles. Editors shall assess concerns impartially, maintain appropriate confidentiality, provide an opportunity for the persons concerned to respond, and apply proportionate editorial actions based on the available evidence. The journal follows relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Forms of Alleged Misconduct

Potential concerns include, but are not limited to:

• Plagiarism, unattributed reuse, or substantial text overlap presented misleadingly.
• Fabrication or falsification of data, findings, images, or research records.
• Duplicate publication or simultaneous submission without appropriate disclosure.
• Authorship manipulation, including undisclosed ghost or guest authorship.
• Citation manipulation or deliberate distortion of the scholarly record.
• Undisclosed competing interests or materially misleading funding statements.
• Failure to obtain required ethical approval, informed consent, or appropriate protection of participants and their data.
• Peer-review manipulation, including false reviewer identities or interference with independent evaluation.

Reporting a Concern

Authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, institutions, or other individuals may report a suspected problem to the editorial office through the journal's official Contact page. A report should identify the manuscript or published article (title, DOI or URL, where available), describe the concern, and provide supporting information or documentation. Individuals should avoid distributing sensitive personal information unnecessarily. Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficient verifiable evidence is provided.

Assessment and Investigation Procedure

1. Receipt and documentation: The editorial office records the allegation and available evidence and determines whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibilities.
2. Initial assessment: An editor evaluates the credibility, specificity, and potential seriousness of the allegation without treating it as proof of misconduct.
3. Conflicts of interest: Any editor or reviewer with a relevant competing interest must not participate in handling the case. An independent editor or appropriate editorial representative will be appointed.
4. Request for explanation: When appropriate, the corresponding author and other relevant parties are invited to provide a response and supporting records within a reasonable period.
5. Consultation or referral: For concerns requiring formal investigation, such as suspected fabrication or participant-protection violations, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution or responsible authority. The journal does not replace an institution's investigative process.
6. Editorial decision: The editor evaluates the findings and available evidence and determines a fair and proportionate response following applicable COPE guidance.
7. Documentation and follow-up: Decisions, communications, and supporting records are retained securely, with access limited to individuals who need the information for legitimate editorial purposes.

Possible Editorial Outcomes

Depending on the nature, timing, and substantiation of a concern, possible actions include a request for clarification or correction; suspension of editorial processing while concerns are assessed; rejection of a manuscript; publication of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction; or notification to an appropriate institution or publisher. Any post-publication notice should remain transparently linked to the published record and should explain the reason for the action without making unsupported accusations.

Fairness, Confidentiality, and Appeals

All allegations are treated as concerns requiring assessment, not as established findings. The journal seeks to protect whistleblowers and respondents from unnecessary disclosure, while acknowledging that limited information sharing may be required for an appropriate investigation. Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned appeal and relevant supporting evidence through the journal's official contact channel. Where feasible, appeals should be considered by an editor not directly responsible for the original decision.

Application Before and After Publication

This policy applies to both manuscripts under review and articles already published by the journal. Publication does not prevent subsequent evaluation of credible concerns. The editorial team may reopen a case when materially relevant new evidence becomes available.