Allegation of Research Misconduct

The Journal of Public and Business Accounting (JoPBA) is committed to upholding research integrity, academic honesty, and the credibility of scholarly publications. JoPBA adheres to the principles of transparency, accountability, fairness, editorial independence, confidentiality, and due diligence in addressing allegations of research misconduct and violations of publication ethics. This policy is informed by the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy establishes the procedures for handling alleged violations of research integrity and publication ethics involving manuscripts submitted to JoPBA, manuscripts under review, and articles that have already been published.

1. Types of Research Misconduct

Alleged breaches of research and publication integrity include, but are not limited to, the following:

Plagiarism. The use of another person's ideas, text, data, methods, or other intellectual work without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution, including substantial unattributed reuse of one's own previously published work.
Data Fabrication and Falsification. The creation of fictitious data or the manipulation, omission, or alteration of research data, methods, analyses, or results in ways that misrepresent the research findings. In accounting and business research, this may include fabricating financial data, survey responses, interview transcripts, audit evidence, or other empirical materials.
Duplicate Publication and Simultaneous Submission. Submitting the same or substantially overlapping manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, or republishing previously published work without appropriate disclosure and justification.
Citation and Peer-Review Manipulation. Inappropriate citation practices intended to inflate citation counts, the use of fabricated references, manipulation of reviewer recommendations, impersonation, the nomination of fictitious reviewers, or other actions that compromise the independence and integrity of peer review.
Violations of Research Ethics. Failure to obtain required ethical approval, where applicable; misuse of personal or confidential information; unauthorized disclosure of sensitive organizational or financial data; breach of informant confidentiality; or failure to protect research participants and other relevant stakeholders.
Authorship Manipulation and Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest. The inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria, omission of legitimate contributors, gift or ghost authorship, misrepresentation of individual contributions, or failure to disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests that could influence the research or its evaluation.
Misrepresentation of Accounting, Audit, and Business Evidence. Deliberately presenting misleading financial statements, accounting records, audit findings, taxation information, business performance data, or public-sector financial information as research evidence. This includes concealing or distorting material information in ways that undermine the validity of the research.
Misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Using AI tools to fabricate or falsify data, generate nonexistent references, misrepresent research results, or produce misleading scholarly content. Failure to disclose AI use when required by JoPBA's AI Usage Policy may also constitute a policy violation.

Differences in scientific interpretation, theoretical perspectives, methodological choices, or accounting judgments do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Unintentional errors are also not automatically treated as misconduct. Each allegation is assessed according to its nature, context, supporting evidence, severity, and potential impact on the reliability of the scholarly work.

2. Reporting Alleged Research Misconduct

Any party, including authors, readers, reviewers, editors, researchers, or other members of the academic and professional community, may report suspected research misconduct through the official contact channels provided on the JoPBA website.

Reports should, where possible, include:

The title, DOI, URL, or other identification of the relevant article or manuscript.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Supporting documentation, references, data, or other verifiable evidence.
Any additional information that may assist the editorial office in assessing the allegation.

Anonymous reports may be considered if they contain sufficient information and credible evidence to justify an initial assessment.

JoPBA will handle reports confidentially and take reasonable steps to protect the identity of the reporter and other involved parties, subject to the requirements of a fair assessment, necessary consultation, and applicable regulations.

3. Procedures for Handling Allegations

JoPBA handles allegations of research misconduct through a fair, evidence-based, and proportionate process.

3.1 Receipt and Documentation

The editorial office records the allegation, the information received, and any supporting evidence. The report is handled in accordance with the journal's confidentiality requirements.

3.2 Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor assesses whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy and whether the available information provides reasonable grounds for further examination. An allegation is not considered proven merely because it has been reported.

3.3 Request for Clarification

Where appropriate, the author or other relevant parties are given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegation and provide explanations, original data, research documentation, or other supporting evidence.

3.4 Further Examination

When necessary, JoPBA may consult independent experts, members of the editorial board, relevant research ethics bodies, or the authors' affiliated institutions. The journal may also examine relevant source materials, research records, data, and publication histories.

JoPBA does not claim to replace the formal investigative authority of an author's institution. Where the matter requires institutional investigation or access to evidence beyond the journal's authority, the journal may refer the concern to the appropriate institution or body.

3.5 Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, its effect on the reliability of the research, the explanations provided by the parties, and relevant publication ethics guidance.

3.6 Follow-up and Recordkeeping

The editorial office documents the assessment, relevant communications, and decisions. Appropriate action is taken to protect the integrity of the editorial process and the scholarly record.

JoPBA may temporarily suspend manuscript processing or publication when reasonably necessary to prevent an editorial decision from being made before a significant concern has been adequately examined.

4. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and editorial board members who have a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript or an allegation must not participate in its assessment or decision-making.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the matter will be assigned to an independent editor appointed to handle the case. Any relevant conflict of interest must be managed in accordance with the JoPBA Conflict of Interest Policy.

5. Editorial Actions

The action taken by JoPBA depends on the nature and severity of the issue, the strength of the evidence, and whether the manuscript has already been published.

5.1 Manuscripts Under Editorial Consideration

For manuscripts that have not yet been published, JoPBA may:

Request clarification, additional documentation, or revisions.
Suspend the editorial or peer-review process while the allegation is examined.
Reject the manuscript if a substantive violation is established.
Refer the matter to the relevant institution or research ethics body when appropriate.

5.2 Published Articles

For articles already published, JoPBA may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:

Correction: To address errors or inaccuracies that can be corrected without invalidating the overall findings or conclusions.
Expression of Concern: To alert readers to a significant unresolved concern while further examination is ongoing or when the available evidence is inconclusive.
Retraction: When the findings are unreliable or the publication is affected by serious ethical or research integrity violations that warrant retraction.

Formal post-publication actions will be handled in accordance with the JoPBA Correction and Retraction Policy. Where applicable, notices will be linked to the affected articles to maintain transparency and preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

6. Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This policy should be read together with other relevant JoPBA editorial policies:

Allegations of plagiarism are assessed in conjunction with the JoPBA Plagiarism Policy.
Questions concerning author eligibility, contribution, and authorship disputes are handled in accordance with the JoPBA Authorship Policy.
Undisclosed financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests are addressed under the JoPBA Conflict of Interest Policy.
The use of AI tools is assessed in accordance with the JoPBA AI Usage Policy.
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions of published articles are handled under the JoPBA Correction and Retraction Policy.

Text-similarity results are not, by themselves, conclusive proof of plagiarism. They must be evaluated in context, considering the source of the similarity, appropriate attribution, the nature of the reused material, and the substance of the work.

Scientific criticism or disagreement with published findings does not automatically constitute misconduct. Such matters may be addressed through appropriate post-publication discussion channels. However, when a discussion raises credible concerns about research integrity, JoPBA may assess those concerns under this policy.

7. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Protection of the Scholarly Record

All allegations will be handled objectively and without presuming that any party is guilty before the available evidence has been assessed. JoPBA seeks to provide relevant parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond while avoiding unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.

The journal does not condone, encourage, or knowingly permit practices that undermine research integrity or publication ethics. Its decisions are directed toward protecting the reliability of scholarly knowledge, the rights of involved parties, and public trust in academic publishing.