Allegation of Misconduct

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality

Publisher: Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

1. Purpose and Scope

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and reliability of the scholarly record. The journal takes allegations of research misconduct and publication misconduct seriously and seeks to address them through fair, confidential, evidence-based, and proportionate procedures.

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to ARISTHA, manuscripts undergoing editorial evaluation or peer review, and articles published by the journal. It also applies, where relevant, to the conduct of authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the publication process.

The journal's approach is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), without implying formal membership or endorsement.

2. Definition of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct refers to conduct that violates accepted standards of research integrity, scholarly communication, or ethical publishing.

Potential misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

Plagiarism: Presenting another person's ideas, words, research findings, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
Data fabrication: Creating or reporting research data, observations, interviews, survey responses, or findings that did not actually exist.
Data falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or results in a manner that misrepresents the research.
Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure or justification.
Simultaneous submission: Submitting substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
Authorship misconduct: Including individuals who do not qualify for authorship, excluding legitimate contributors, or making unauthorized authorship changes.
Citation manipulation: Inappropriately influencing citation patterns to increase citations to particular authors, articles, or journals.
Peer-review manipulation: Interfering with the independence, authenticity, or integrity of the peer-review process.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose relationships or interests that may materially influence research or editorial judgments.
Ethical violations involving research participants: Conducting research without required approvals, permissions, or appropriate safeguards.
Misuse of artificial intelligence: Using AI-assisted technologies to fabricate evidence, generate false references, misrepresent research activities, or conceal material aspects of manuscript preparation.

Honest errors, legitimate scholarly disagreements, and differences in interpretation do not automatically constitute misconduct.

3. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Concerns about possible misconduct may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, or other parties with relevant information.

Reports should be submitted through the journal's official editorial communication channel and should include, where available:

The title or identifying details of the manuscript or published article.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Supporting evidence, documentation, or relevant references.
The relationship of the reported concern to the research or publication.
Contact information for follow-up communication, when the reporting individual is willing to provide it.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible evidence to permit meaningful assessment.

The journal discourages knowingly false, malicious, or deliberately misleading allegations.

4. Initial Assessment of Allegations

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor should conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and warrants further examination.

The initial assessment may consider:

The specificity and credibility of the allegation.
The relevance and reliability of the available evidence.
Whether the issue concerns a submitted manuscript or a published article.
Whether the concern may arise from an honest error, misunderstanding, or legitimate academic disagreement.
Whether further information is required before proceeding.

Allegations that lack sufficient information may be closed or held pending additional evidence. The reasons for such decisions should be documented internally where appropriate.

5. Investigation and Evidence Evaluation

When an allegation warrants further examination, the editorial team should evaluate the available information in a fair, impartial, and proportionate manner.

Depending on the nature of the concern, this may involve:

Reviewing the manuscript, published article, or associated documentation.
Examining relevant references, research methods, data, figures, or supplementary materials.
Requesting clarification or supporting documentation from the authors.
Consulting independent subject specialists or ethics advisers when appropriate.
Reviewing editorial correspondence and peer-review records.
Contacting a relevant research institution when a formal institutional investigation is necessary.

The journal should not present an allegation as an established finding before the available evidence has been appropriately assessed.

6. Right to Respond and Procedural Fairness

Individuals whose conduct is questioned should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before consequential editorial action is taken.

Requests for explanation should identify the relevant concern clearly and specify the information or clarification being sought.

The editorial team should consider responses objectively and evaluate them alongside other available evidence.

Where a concern involves an editor or reviewer, responsibility for evaluating the matter should be assigned to an appropriately independent individual.

7. Confidentiality and Protection of Information

The journal should handle allegations and related correspondence with appropriate confidentiality.

Information should be shared only with individuals whose involvement is reasonably necessary for evaluating or resolving the concern, subject to applicable legal and ethical obligations.

The identity of a reporting individual should not be disclosed unnecessarily. However, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance, particularly where disclosure is required by law or necessary for procedural fairness.

Personal data, confidential research materials, and unpublished manuscript content should be protected throughout the process.

8. Allegations Involving Submitted Manuscripts

When potential misconduct is identified before publication, the journal may take appropriate editorial measures, including:

Requesting clarification or additional documentation.
Suspending editorial consideration while significant concerns are assessed.
Seeking independent expert advice.
Rejecting a manuscript when serious ethical violations are substantiated.
Referring matters requiring institutional investigation to the relevant institution.

A manuscript should not be rejected solely because an allegation has been made; the decision should reflect the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the journal's editorial standards.

9. Allegations Involving Published Articles

When credible concerns arise after publication, the journal should assess whether the reliability, ethical standing, or integrity of the published article has been affected.

Depending on the findings, appropriate actions may include:

Taking no further action when concerns are not substantiated.
Publishing a correction for errors that do not invalidate the principal findings.
Issuing an expression of concern when substantial issues remain unresolved.
Retracting an article when findings are unreliable or serious ethical violations justify retraction.

Post-publication notices should be transparent, appropriately linked to the affected article, and sufficiently informative to explain the editorial action without making unsupported accusations.

10. Institutional Involvement

The journal recognizes that research institutions and other competent bodies may have greater authority and resources to investigate certain forms of research misconduct.

Where appropriate, the editorial team may refer credible concerns to an author's institution, research ethics committee, funding organization, or other relevant authority.

Such referrals should be based on a legitimate need for investigation and should be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

The journal retains responsibility for decisions concerning its own editorial process and published scholarly record.

11. Conflicts of Interest in Misconduct Investigations

Editors and other individuals involved in assessing allegations must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

An editor should not oversee an allegation involving their own work or circumstances that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where necessary, responsibility should be transferred to another qualified editor or an independent person designated through the journal's editorial governance arrangements.

12. Editorial Actions and Possible Outcomes

The outcome of a misconduct assessment should be determined by the available evidence and the seriousness of the identified issue.

Possible outcomes include:

Closure of the case when allegations are unsupported.
Requests for clarification or additional evidence.
Editorial rejection of a manuscript.
Correction of a published article.
Publication of an expression of concern.
Retraction of a published article.
Referral to a relevant institution or competent authority.
Other proportionate measures consistent with publication ethics and applicable procedures.

Editorial actions should be documented appropriately, and affected parties should be informed of decisions when relevant and feasible.

13. Appeals and Reconsideration

Individuals affected by an editorial decision relating to alleged misconduct may request reconsideration when they can identify a substantive procedural concern, material factual error, or significant new evidence.

An appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting information.

Where practicable, an appeal should be reviewed by an editor or other qualified individual who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

Submission of an appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse an editorial action.

14. Recordkeeping and Documentation

The journal should maintain appropriate records of significant misconduct concerns and related editorial actions.

Records may include the original allegation, relevant evidence, requests for clarification, responses, assessments, decisions, and associated correspondence.

Such records should be retained and protected in accordance with applicable institutional procedures, privacy obligations, and legitimate editorial needs.

15. Prevention and Editorial Awareness

ARISTHA encourages ethical awareness among authors, reviewers, and editors as an important means of preventing misconduct.

The journal supports responsible citation practices, transparent research reporting, appropriate authorship attribution, disclosure of competing interests, ethical treatment of research participants, and responsible use of emerging technologies.

Editorial policies and author instructions should be reviewed periodically to support consistency with developments in scholarly publishing standards.

16. Policy Review and Updates

This policy provides a framework for handling allegations of misconduct in manuscripts submitted to or published by ARISTHA.

The journal may revise the policy in response to changes in publication ethics guidance, applicable regulations, institutional procedures, or editorial practice.

Any investigation or editorial action should be guided by fairness, proportionality, confidentiality, evidence-based assessment, and the responsibility to protect the integrity of scholarly communication.