GOVERNMENT: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is committed to upholding research integrity, academic honesty, and ethical standards throughout the research and publication process. The journal does not tolerate research misconduct or any practice that undermines the credibility, reliability, or transparency of scholarly work.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for addressing suspected research misconduct in manuscripts submitted to or published by the journal.

1. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to violations of established standards of research integrity in the conduct, reporting, review, or publication of scholarly work.

Research misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication: inventing data, research participants, observations, interviews, documents, or research results and presenting them as genuine.

• Falsification: manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or findings in ways that misrepresent the research record.

• Plagiarism: presenting another person's ideas, words, data, or scholarly contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

• Inappropriate data manipulation: selectively altering, omitting, or misrepresenting evidence in a manner that materially distorts the research findings.

• Duplicate or redundant publication: publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure or justification.

• Inappropriate authorship practices: falsely attributing authorship, excluding eligible contributors, or including individuals who do not meet the journal's authorship criteria.

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to disclose relevant interests that may compromise the integrity of the research or publication process.

• Ethical violations: conducting or reporting research in violation of applicable ethical requirements, including relevant requirements concerning human participants, consent, confidentiality, or data protection.

• Citation manipulation: engaging in inappropriate practices intended to inflate citations or misrepresent the scholarly basis of a manuscript.

• Manipulation of the publication process: attempting to improperly influence peer review, editorial decisions, or the integrity of the scholarly record.

Honest errors, reasonable differences in interpretation, and good-faith academic disagreements do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Each case must be assessed on its evidence and circumstances.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research is conducted and reported honestly, accurately, and transparently.

Authors must:

1. Present research data, methods, analysis, and findings truthfully.

2. Ensure that data, interviews, documents, and other reported evidence are authentic and have not been fabricated or falsified.

3. Obtain relevant ethical approval, informed consent, and permissions where required.

4. Cite sources appropriately and disclose relevant previous publications.

5. Report funding sources, competing interests, and other relevant disclosures.

6. Retain appropriate research records and provide supporting information when reasonably requested by the editorial team.

7. Cooperate in good faith with investigations concerning the integrity of their submitted or published work.

Authors must not knowingly submit fabricated, falsified, misleading, or otherwise improperly reported research.

3. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors are responsible for assessing credible concerns about research integrity impartially and taking appropriate action when necessary.

Reviewers who identify suspected misconduct should communicate their concerns confidentially to the editor and provide relevant evidence where possible. Reviewers must not independently investigate or publicly accuse authors of misconduct.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of allegations and supporting materials, avoid premature conclusions, and manage potential conflicts of interest during the assessment process.

4. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Concerns about possible research misconduct may be reported to the journal's editorial office by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, or other relevant parties.

Reports should, where possible, identify the manuscript or published article concerned, describe the nature of the allegation, and provide supporting information or evidence.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit an initial assessment.

The journal will assess reports responsibly and will not treat an allegation as proof of misconduct.

5. Procedures for Handling Allegations

When a potential research integrity violation is identified, the journal may follow these steps:

Step 1: Preliminary assessment. The editor evaluates the allegation, available evidence, relevance to the journal's policies, and whether further examination is warranted.

Step 2: Request for clarification. Where appropriate, the corresponding author and other relevant parties may be asked to provide an explanation, supporting documentation, original data, research records, or evidence of ethical approval.

Step 3: Editorial evaluation. The editor assesses the available information objectively and may consult independent experts or members of the editorial team who have no relevant conflict of interest.

Step 4: Referral for further investigation. When the matter cannot be resolved through editorial assessment, or when the allegation involves serious institutional or ethical concerns, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant research institution, ethics committee, or other competent authority.

Step 5: Decision and action. The journal determines the appropriate editorial response based on the evidence available, the seriousness of the concern, and the implications for the reliability of the scholarly record.

The procedure may be adapted to the circumstances of each case. The journal does not replace the formal investigative authority of the author's institution or other competent bodies.

6. Editorial Actions

Depending on the findings and the stage of publication, appropriate actions may include:

• Requesting clarification or additional supporting documentation.

• Requiring correction or revision of a manuscript where the issue can legitimately be resolved.

• Rejecting a manuscript when serious misconduct is established or the integrity of the work cannot be adequately demonstrated.

• Suspending editorial processing while a credible allegation is being assessed.

• Publishing a correction or an expression of concern when warranted.

• Retracting a published article when the evidence and circumstances justify retraction.

• Notifying the relevant institution or other competent authority when appropriate.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the findings and consistent with the journal's publication ethics and article retraction policies.

7. Misconduct Identified After Publication

If credible concerns arise after an article has been published, the journal will assess the evidence and determine whether further investigation or corrective action is necessary.

Where the reliability or integrity of the published record is affected, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, as appropriate.

The journal will provide a transparent editorial notice explaining the reason for the action, subject to applicable confidentiality, legal, and ethical considerations.

8. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

The journal will handle allegations and supporting materials confidentially to the extent appropriate. Information will be shared only with parties who have a legitimate role in assessing or resolving the matter, subject to applicable requirements.

Individuals accused of misconduct will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond when appropriate. All parties are expected to cooperate honestly and avoid retaliation, intimidation, or the deliberate submission of malicious allegations.

9. Cooperation with Institutions

Where necessary, the journal may communicate with the author's affiliated institution or another competent body to request clarification, report credible concerns, or support an appropriate investigation.

The journal may consider the outcome of a formal institutional investigation when determining the appropriate editorial response. However, editorial decisions concerning the publication record remain the responsibility of the journal.

10. Policy Compliance

All authors submitting manuscripts to GOVERNMENT: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan are expected to comply with this policy and the journal's related requirements on publication ethics, plagiarism, authorship, conflicts of interest, and article retraction.

The journal reserves the right to take appropriate editorial action when research misconduct is established or when serious concerns about the integrity of a manuscript or published article remain unresolved.