Allegation Misconduct

1. Commitment and Principles for Handling Allegations

BAJU: Journal of Fashion and Textile Design Unesa is committed to upholding integrity, honesty, transparency, and accountability in research and scholarly publishing. The journal takes seriously all allegations of misconduct concerning manuscripts under review and articles that have already been published. The handling of allegations is guided by the relevant COPE guidelines and flowcharts. Publication Ethics

Each report is assessed objectively, fairly, and on the basis of evidence. Alleged misconduct is not treated as proven without an adequate assessment. Authors and other parties concerned are given an opportunity to provide explanations and supporting documentation. Individuals with conflicts of interest must not determine the outcome of the assessment. Publication Ethics

2. Scope of Misconduct

This policy covers allegations of breaches of research integrity and publication ethics, including fabrication, meaning the invention of data or research findings that were never obtained; falsification, meaning the alteration or omission of data, processes, or research findings in a manner that is misleading; and plagiarism, meaning the use of another party’s writing, ideas, data, or work without adequate attribution. Other forms of misconduct include duplicate publication without appropriate disclosure, simultaneous submission of the same manuscript, authorship manipulation, citation manipulation, manipulation of the peer review process, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. E-Journal Universitas Negeri Surabaya

In the field of fashion and textiles, assessments may also address allegations of presenting another party’s designs, patterns, motifs, or documentation of creative work as one’s own; manipulating product photographs in ways that alter the meaning of research findings; falsifying material testing results; and reporting creative processes or experiments in ways that do not reflect how they were actually conducted.

Unintentional errors, differences in scholarly interpretation, or disagreements over methods are not automatically classified as misconduct. However, errors that affect the reliability of an article may still require a correction or other editorial action. Publication Ethics

3. Submission of Reports

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, and other parties may submit written reports to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected], using the following subject line:

Research Misconduct Allegation – [Article Title or ID]

Reports should include the title or identifying details of the article, a description of the alleged misconduct, the specific sections in question, and verifiable supporting evidence, such as documents for comparison, data, images, or relevant correspondence. Reporting parties may provide their names and contact details to facilitate clarification. Anonymous reports will still be considered if they contain information that is specific, relevant, and sufficient for follow-up. Information received through other channels may also be examined if it has a credible basis. Publication Ethics

4. Assessment and Clarification

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt of reports within seven working days, provided that the reporting party supplies contact details through which they can be reached. An initial assessment is conducted to evaluate the completeness of the information, the relevance of the evidence, the seriousness of the allegations, and their potential impact on the reliability of the article.

If further assessment is required, the editorial office will request explanations from the authors or other parties concerned, including original data, research records, documentation of the creative process, test results, or ethical approval documents, where relevant. The response deadline will be specified in the request for clarification. The editorial office may involve independent experts and suspend the review or publication process while substantive issues remain unresolved. Publication Ethics

Where allegations require a formal investigation, the editorial office may contact the authors’ institutions, ethics committees, funding bodies, or other relevant authorities. The journal is responsible for editorial decisions and the integrity of published articles, whereas formal investigations into researchers’ conduct are the responsibility of the competent institutions. Action to correct the publication record may still be necessary even if an institution does not classify an error as misconduct. Publication Ethics

5. Confidentiality and Independence

Information concerning reports, the identities of reporting parties, authors’ responses, and assessment documents is handled confidentially to the extent possible. Information is shared only with parties who need it for assessment and follow-up. The journal respects requests for anonymity and does not tolerate intimidation or retaliation against those who report concerns in good faith. Publication Ethics

If a report concerns an editor or a member of the editorial board, that individual will not be involved in handling their own case. If a report concerns the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility for handling the case will be transferred to the publisher or an appointed independent party without conflicts of interest. Publication Ethics

6. Decisions and Editorial Actions

Decisions are based on the evidence, the clarifications provided, the seriousness of the issue, and its impact on the integrity of the publication. For unpublished manuscripts, possible actions include requests for revisions, reassessment, suspension of the process, or rejection.

For published articles, actions may include:

1. Correction: Issued when an error can be rectified without invalidating the overall reliability of the findings.

2. Expression of Concern: Issued when there are serious and credible concerns about the reliability of an article, but the evidence remains inconclusive or completing the assessment requires an extended period of time.

3. Retraction: Undertaken when there are sufficient grounds to determine that an article is unreliable or warrants retraction for other reasons, such as substantial plagiarism, inappropriate duplicate publication, or unethical research. Publication Ethics

Post-publication notices must objectively explain the reasons for the action, identify the article concerned, and be linked to that article. Retracted articles must be clearly marked to preserve the transparency of the scholarly record. The purpose of editorial action is to maintain the reliability of the literature, not to punish authors. Publication Ethics

If a report is not supported by sufficient evidence, the assessment may be closed with documented reasons. A case may be reopened if relevant new evidence becomes available.

7. Notification of Outcomes and Appeals

The outcome of the assessment is communicated to the parties concerned, subject to the necessary confidentiality requirements. Authors or reporting parties may submit a written appeal, providing clear grounds, new evidence, or an explanation of procedural errors. Appeals are reviewed by parties without conflicts of interest who, where possible, were not involved in the initial decision. The editorial office documents all processes and decisions. Publication Ethics