Allegations of Research Misconduct
UNESA Journal of Chemical Education (UJCEd) takes every allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether it concerns a submitted manuscript or a published article.
Similarity and AI-generated content screening.
All manuscripts submitted to UJCEd must be free from plagiarism. Authors are encouraged to check the similarity of their manuscripts using plagiarism detection software prior to submission.
After revision, the editors screen each manuscript using Turnitin software. The maximum acceptable similarity index is 25% in total, with no more than 3% from any single source, excluding quotations and the reference list. The editors also screen manuscripts for AI-generated content, with a maximum acceptable score of 20%.
Manuscripts that exceed either threshold will be returned to the authors for revision. Upon resubmission, the authors must provide a similarity and AI detection report demonstrating that the manuscript meets these requirements.
Scope of Research Misconduct. Misconduct includes fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism (including duplicate or redundant publication), manipulation of images or citations, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, research without the required ethical approval or participant consent, and misconduct in peer review. Honest errors and differences of scholarly opinion are not misconduct.
How to report. Anyone may raise a concern by writing to the Editorial at [email protected] or [email protected]. Please identify the manuscript or article, including the DOI number, URL, and title, and describe the concern with supporting evidence. Anonymous reports are considered if they contain specific and verifiable evidence. The identity of the person who reports is kept confidential.
How we handle allegations.
- Initial review. The Editor-in-Chief, with an editor who has no conflict of interest, checks whether the concern is specific and supported by evidence. Unfounded reports are closed.
- Author clarification. If the concern is credible, the corresponding author is informed and asked to respond and, where relevant, to provide original data or documents. The manuscript is placed on hold until the case is resolved.
- Independent handling. Editors or reviewers with a conflict of interest (if any) are excluded from the case. The journal may seek advice from independent experts and may ask the authors’ institution to investigate. The journal follows COPE guidance in reaching its decision.
- The decision is based on the evidence and the author’s response. The person who raised the concern is informed of the outcome, within the limits of confidentiality.
Possible editorial actions. Depending on the seriousness of the case, the journal may: reject the manuscript; publish a correction; publish an expression of concern; retract the article with a retraction notice linked to the original; inform the authors’ institution or funder; or decline further submissions from the authors for a period set by the editors. Reviewers or editors found responsible for misconduct are removed from their roles. Authors may appeal a decision by writing to [email protected] or [email protected] with new evidence.
