Allegation of Research Misconduct Policy

GeoHuman: People, Place, and Power

GeoHuman: People, Place, and Power is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the scholarly record. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles them through a fair, confidential, transparent, and evidence-based process.

This policy applies to allegations involving submitted manuscripts, accepted manuscripts, published articles, peer review processes, editorial conduct, authorship, data integrity, citation practices, and other matters related to publication ethics.

1. Purpose

This policy establishes the procedure for receiving, assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of research misconduct related to manuscripts submitted to or published in GeoHuman: People, Place, and Power.

The policy aims to:

1. Protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
2. Ensure fair treatment of authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and complainants.
3. Provide a transparent process for handling allegations.
4. Prevent publication misconduct.
5. Support correction, clarification, or retraction when necessary.
6. Maintain public trust in the journal’s editorial process.

2. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to any action that compromises the integrity, originality, reliability, ethical validity, or transparency of research and publication.

Research misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

1. Plagiarism.
2. Self-plagiarism or redundant publication.
3. Data fabrication.
4. Data falsification.
5. Image manipulation.
6. Citation manipulation.
7. Peer review manipulation.
8. Undisclosed conflict of interest.
9. Authorship manipulation.
10. Guest, gift, or ghost authorship.
11. Duplicate submission.
12. Unethical research involving human participants, communities, cultural groups, or sensitive data.
13. Misrepresentation of ethical approval.
14. Misrepresentation of funding sources.
15. Misuse of AI-assisted technologies.
16. Misuse of confidential manuscript or review information.
17. Unauthorized use of third-party material.
18. Manipulation of research findings, maps, spatial data, field data, interview data, or visual materials.
19. Failure to disclose corrections, limitations, or known errors that affect the validity of the work.

3. Sources of Allegations

Allegations of research misconduct may be submitted by:

1. Readers.
2. Authors.
3. Reviewers.
4. Editors.
5. Editorial board members.
6. Institutions.
7. Research participants.
8. Funding bodies.
9. Publishers.
10. Indexing agencies.
11. Members of the public.

The journal may also initiate an investigation when the editorial team identifies potential misconduct during screening, peer review, production, or after publication.

4. Submission of Allegations

Allegations should be submitted to the editorial office through the official journal contact email.

A misconduct allegation should include, where possible:

1. Full name and contact information of the complainant.
2. Title of the manuscript or published article.
3. Names of the author(s), if known.
4. Description of the alleged misconduct.
5. Supporting evidence.
6. Relevant documents, screenshots, links, reports, or files.
7. Explanation of how the alleged misconduct affects the integrity of the manuscript or article.

Anonymous allegations may be considered if they are supported by sufficient evidence. The journal will not dismiss an allegation solely because it is submitted anonymously.

5. Confidentiality

All allegations will be handled confidentially.

The journal will protect the confidentiality of:

1. Complainants.
2. Authors.
3. Reviewers.
4. Editors.
5. Research participants.
6. Institutions involved in the process.

Information related to an allegation will only be shared with individuals who need to be involved in the assessment or investigation.

Confidentiality may be limited when disclosure is necessary for legal reasons, institutional investigation, ethical obligation, or correction of the scholarly record.

6. Initial Assessment

After receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed ethics editor will conduct an initial assessment.

The initial assessment aims to determine whether:

1. The allegation falls within the journal’s responsibility.
2. The allegation is specific and evidence-based.
3. The issue concerns research misconduct, publication ethics, editorial conduct, or a technical error.
4. The manuscript or article requires immediate editorial action.
5. Additional information is needed from the complainant, authors, reviewers, editors, or institutions.

The initial assessment does not constitute a final judgment. It is used to determine the appropriate next step.

7. Allegations During Manuscript Review

If an allegation arises during submission, editorial screening, or peer review, the editorial process may be paused while the issue is assessed.

Possible actions include:

1. Requesting clarification from the authors.
2. Requesting additional documents or data.
3. Consulting the reviewers or editorial board.
4. Conducting additional similarity or integrity checks.
5. Rejecting the manuscript if serious misconduct is confirmed.
6. Contacting the authors’ institution if formal investigation is required.

The journal will not accept or publish a manuscript while a serious unresolved misconduct concern remains under investigation.

8. Allegations After Publication

If an allegation concerns a published article, the journal will assess whether the article remains reliable.

Possible actions include:

1. No action, if the allegation is not supported by evidence.
2. Publication of a correction.
3. Publication of an expression of concern.
4. Retraction of the article.
5. Notification to the authors’ institution.
6. Notification to relevant indexing agencies or databases.
7. Update of article metadata and DOI records, where applicable.

The journal’s primary responsibility is to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Author Response

Authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond to allegations before the journal makes a final decision.

The journal may ask authors to provide:

1. Explanation of the issue.
2. Original data.
3. Ethical approval documents.
4. Consent documents, where applicable.
5. Similarity report explanation.
6. Authorship contribution details.
7. Funding and conflict of interest clarification.
8. Raw figures, maps, spatial datasets, interview records, or field documentation.
9. Revision history or communication records.

Failure to respond within the specified timeframe may result in editorial action based on the available evidence.

10. Institutional Involvement

When an allegation requires formal investigation beyond the journal’s capacity, the journal may contact the authors’ institution, research organization, ethics committee, or funding body.

Institutional involvement may be necessary in cases involving:

1. Data fabrication.
2. Data falsification.
3. Ethical approval concerns.
4. Research participant protection.
5. Serious plagiarism.
6. Authorship disputes.
7. Misuse of research funds.
8. Misconduct involving institutional facilities, data, or approval processes.
9. Repeated or systematic misconduct.

The journal may request the institution to conduct an investigation and inform the journal of the outcome.

11. Editorial Independence

The handling of research misconduct allegations is conducted independently from commercial, institutional, political, or personal influence.

The publisher, sponsor, institution, or external party must not interfere with editorial decisions related to misconduct handling, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

12. Conflict of Interest in Misconduct Handling

Editors or editorial board members who have a conflict of interest with the manuscript, authors, complainants, reviewers, or institutions involved must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process.

A conflict of interest may include:

1. Recent collaboration.
2. Institutional affiliation.
3. Personal relationship.
4. Financial interest.
5. Academic competition.
6. Supervisory relationship.
7. Prior involvement in the disputed research.
8. Any condition that may affect impartial judgment.

In such cases, the matter will be assigned to another editor or an independent editorial board member.

13. Types of Editorial Action

Depending on the evidence and severity of the case, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

1. Reject the submitted manuscript.
2. Request revision or clarification.
3. Request raw data or documentation.
4. Suspend the peer review process.
5. Publish a correction.
6. Publish an expression of concern.
7. Retract the article.
8. Notify the authors’ institution.
9. Notify funding bodies.
10. Notify indexing agencies.
11. Ban authors from submitting to the journal for a defined period in serious cases.
12. Remove a reviewer or editor from the journal’s database if misconduct is confirmed.
13. Correct article metadata, DOI records, or online files.

14. Correction

A correction may be issued when an error affects part of the article but does not invalidate the overall findings.

Corrections may be used for:

1. Author affiliation errors.
2. Minor data errors.
3. Figure or table errors.
4. Metadata errors.
5. Funding statement errors.
6. Conflict of interest disclosure errors.
7. Errors that require clarification but do not undermine the article’s main conclusions.

The correction notice will be linked to the original article.

15. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when serious concerns exist but the investigation is incomplete or inconclusive.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when:

1. There is evidence of potential misconduct, but institutional investigation is ongoing.
2. Authors or institutions do not respond adequately.
3. The reliability of the article is uncertain.
4. There is a risk that readers may be misled if no notice is issued.
5. The journal is awaiting evidence from an institution, funder, or ethics committee.

The expression of concern will be linked to the published article.

16. Retraction

An article may be retracted when the findings are unreliable or the publication record has been seriously compromised.

Grounds for retraction may include:

1. Clear evidence of data fabrication.
2. Clear evidence of data falsification.
3. Plagiarism.
4. Redundant or duplicate publication.
5. Unethical research.
6. Manipulated peer review.
7. Serious error invalidating the findings.
8. Unauthorized use of data, images, maps, or other materials.
9. Copyright infringement.
10. Misrepresentation of authorship.
11. Undisclosed conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of the article.
12. Serious breach of research ethics.

A retraction notice will be published and linked to the original article. The original article will remain accessible where legally and ethically appropriate, but it will be clearly marked as retracted.

17. Handling Authorship Disputes

Authorship disputes may include claims of omitted authors, gift authorship, guest authorship, ghost authorship, incorrect author order, or unauthorized submission.

The journal will not normally adjudicate authorship disputes on behalf of authors. Authors may be asked to resolve the dispute through their institution.

If the authorship dispute affects the integrity of a submitted manuscript, the editorial process may be paused until the matter is resolved.

For published articles, the journal may issue a correction if all authors and relevant institutions agree on the revised authorship.

18. Handling Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

If plagiarism or redundant publication is suspected, the journal will assess the similarity report, cited sources, manuscript structure, and the extent of overlapping text, data, figures, or arguments.

Possible outcomes include:

1. Request for clarification.
2. Request for revision.
3. Rejection of the manuscript.
4. Correction of the published article.
5. Retraction of the published article.
6. Notification to the authors’ institution.

The journal distinguishes between minor similarity, properly cited overlap, poor paraphrasing, text recycling, and serious plagiarism.

19. Handling Data and Image Concerns

If concerns arise about data, images, maps, spatial analysis, figures, or field documentation, the journal may request the authors to provide original files or supporting documentation.

This may include:

1. Raw datasets.
2. GIS files.
3. Spatial layers.
4. Remote sensing data.
5. Field notes.
6. Interview records.
7. Consent documentation.
8. Original images.
9. Statistical output.
10. Data processing records.

If the authors cannot provide reasonable supporting evidence, the journal may take editorial action based on the available evidence.

20. Handling Peer Review Manipulation

Peer review manipulation may include false reviewer identities, fabricated reviewer accounts, inappropriate reviewer suggestions, coercive citation, compromised confidentiality, or attempts to influence editorial decisions.

If peer review manipulation is suspected, the journal may:

1. Cancel the affected review process.
2. Reassign the manuscript to new reviewers.
3. Reject the manuscript.
4. Remove the reviewer from the reviewer database.
5. Notify relevant institutions.
6. Retract the article if manipulation is discovered after publication.

21. Handling Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation includes inappropriate efforts to inflate citations to a specific author, journal, editor, reviewer, institution, or publication.

The journal prohibits:

1. Coercive citation.
2. Excessive self-citation.
3. Irrelevant citation insertion.
4. Reviewer-requested citations that are not academically justified.
5. Citation cartels.
6. Artificial citation practices designed to manipulate metrics.

If citation manipulation is detected, the journal may request revision, reject the manuscript, remove reviewer comments, or take further editorial action.

22. Handling Misuse of AI-Assisted Technologies

AI-assisted technologies may not be used to fabricate data, create false citations, manipulate images, generate misleading analysis, or replace author responsibility.

Authors must disclose the use of AI-assisted tools when such tools are used for writing support, language editing, data processing, coding, or analysis.

If undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI-assisted technologies is suspected, the journal may request clarification, documentation, revision, or take editorial action.

23. Protection Against Retaliation

The journal does not tolerate retaliation against complainants, reviewers, editors, or whistleblowers who raise concerns in good faith.

Allegations made in good faith will be assessed fairly, even if they are not ultimately confirmed.

However, allegations that are knowingly false, malicious, defamatory, or abusive may be rejected, and the journal may take appropriate action to protect affected parties.

24. Timeline for Handling Allegations

The journal aims to acknowledge receipt of an allegation within 7 working days.

The initial assessment will normally be completed within 30 days, depending on the complexity of the case.

Cases requiring author clarification, institutional investigation, or external consultation may take longer.

The journal will seek to resolve cases as efficiently as possible while ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and due process.

25. Record Keeping

The journal will maintain confidential records of all misconduct allegations, assessments, correspondence, evidence, decisions, and corrective actions.

Records may include:

1. Original complaint.
2. Supporting evidence.
3. Editorial assessment.
4. Author responses.
5. Reviewer or editor statements.
6. Institutional correspondence.
7. Final decision.
8. Correction, expression of concern, or retraction notices.
9. Metadata updates.
10. Follow-up actions.

Records will be stored securely and used only for editorial, ethical, legal, or publication integrity purposes.

26. Communication of Decisions

The journal will communicate the outcome of the case to relevant parties, which may include:

1. The complainant.
2. The corresponding author.
3. All authors.
4. Reviewers.
5. Editors.
6. Institutions.
7. Funding bodies.
8. Indexing agencies.
9. Readers, through a published notice where applicable.

Public notices will be written clearly, objectively, and without defamatory language.

27. Appeals

Authors or complainants may appeal a decision if they believe there was a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or new evidence.

Appeals must be submitted in writing and must include:

1. The article or manuscript title.
2. The reason for appeal.
3. Relevant evidence.
4. Explanation of why the decision should be reconsidered.

Appeals will be reviewed by an editor or editorial board member who was not directly involved in the original decision, where possible.

28. Policy Review

This policy is reviewed periodically to ensure that the journal’s procedures remain aligned with international standards of publication ethics and research integrity.