Allegation of research misconduct

Research or publication misconduct refers to conduct that compromises the integrity, reliability, or transparency of scholarly research and its publication. Depending on the circumstances, allegations may involve fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, manipulation of peer review, undisclosed competing interests, inappropriate manipulation of images, ethical approval or informed-consent concerns, or other serious breaches of research and publication ethics. ORLI assesses each allegation according to the nature and available evidence of the concern, with reference to the COPE Core Practices and relevant COPE flowcharts.

Not every error, disagreement, or difference in interpretation constitutes research misconduct. ORLI distinguishes potential misconduct from honest error and legitimate academic disagreement by examining the evidence and, where appropriate, seeking clarification from the parties concerned. COPE's guidance on suspected fabricated data recommends obtaining evidence, considering an independent opinion where appropriate, and asking the author to explain the concern without making a premature accusation (COPE: Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript).

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, and other parties with relevant information may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the ORLI Editorial Office. Reports should provide a clear description of the concern and, where available, supporting information such as article details, source documents, relevant correspondence, data, images, or links to the material in question.

Allegations should be submitted in good faith and with sufficient information to permit a reasonable assessment. ORLI will consider credible concerns raised before or after publication. Reports may concern manuscripts under review, published articles, or conduct associated with the journal's editorial and peer-review processes. COPE provides procedures for handling suspected plagiarism and other integrity concerns at different stages of publication (COPE: Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript; COPE: Guidance for when institutions are contacted by journals).

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of research or publication ethics and whether sufficient information is available for further consideration. Additional evidence or clarification may be requested from the complainant where necessary. ORLI may seek advice from an appropriate editorial ethics adviser or an independent expert when specialized assessment is required.

Where an allegation warrants further examination, ORLI will contact the relevant author or authors and provide a fair opportunity to respond to the concern. Communication will be factual and neutral, and no conclusion of misconduct will be reached solely on the basis of an unverified allegation. COPE's flowchart on suspected plagiarism recommends gathering documentary evidence, assessing the extent and nature of the concern, and contacting the author for an explanation before determining the appropriate course of action (COPE: Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript).

The assessment may include examining the manuscript and its publication history, comparing potentially duplicated text or data, reviewing images or underlying data where available, considering peer-review records, and consulting relevant experts. The nature and extent of the examination will depend on the allegation and the evidence available. ORLI will not present a suspicion as an established finding without an adequate basis.

ORLI will handle allegations and related correspondence confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair investigation, applicable law, and the need to consult relevant parties or institutions. Information will be shared only with those who need it for assessment, investigation, or appropriate follow-up.

All parties will be treated fairly. Authors will have a reasonable opportunity to explain their position, while complainants and other individuals who provide information in good faith will be treated respectfully. The journal will seek to avoid unnecessary reputational harm while the facts remain under review. These procedures are consistent with COPE's emphasis on transparent editorial processes, appropriate handling of complaints, and responsible responses to potential breaches of publication ethics (COPE Core Practices).

If an allegation is serious, the available explanation is unsatisfactory, the authors do not respond, or the matter requires investigative authority beyond the journal's remit, ORLI may contact the relevant author's institution, research integrity office, funder, or other appropriate body. The referral will describe the concern and provide relevant supporting evidence, while respecting confidentiality and applicable requirements.

ORLI recognizes that journals generally do not have the authority or resources to conduct a full institutional investigation into every allegation. COPE's Guidance for when institutions are contacted by journals describes how journals may raise research or publication integrity concerns with institutions, provide evidence, and seek appropriate assessment or follow-up. ORLI may consider the information received from the institution when deciding whether editorial action is necessary.

Fabrication or falsification of data. Allegations that research data, results, or records have been invented, manipulated, selectively altered, or inaccurately presented will be assessed on the available evidence. ORLI may request clarification or supporting data and, where appropriate, refer the matter to the author's institution. The journal will follow the relevant principles in the COPE flowchart for suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript.

Plagiarism and unattributed use. Allegations that text, ideas, data, figures, or other material have been used without appropriate acknowledgment will be assessed by examining the material, the extent of overlap, attribution, and relevant context. Depending on the findings, ORLI may request clarification or revision, reject a submission, or consider post-publication action. The journal will refer to COPE's guidance on suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscripts and COPE's guidance on suspected plagiarism in published articles.

Image manipulation. Concerns about images that appear to have been inappropriately altered, duplicated, or presented in a misleading manner may be examined by the editors, who may request original image files or additional explanations. Where necessary, the journal may refer the matter to the author's institution or consider an appropriate correction or other editorial action. See the COPE flowchart on image manipulation in a published article.

Redundant or duplicate publication. ORLI will assess allegations that substantially overlapping work has been published or submitted elsewhere without adequate disclosure, taking into account the nature of the overlap, transparency of citation, and applicable editorial policies. Relevant guidance includes the COPE flowchart on suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript and the COPE flowchart on suspected redundant publication in a published article.

Authorship and contributorship concerns. Allegations involving undisclosed contributors, guest or gift authorship, ghost authorship, disputed author lists, or changes made without appropriate agreement will be assessed by seeking clarification from the relevant authors. Where the dispute cannot be resolved by the journal, ORLI may refer the matter to the authors' institutions. The journal will consider the relevant COPE Core Practices on authorship and contributorship.

Peer-review manipulation and competing interests. Allegations that peer review has been falsified or manipulated, or that relevant competing interests have not been disclosed, will be assessed with reference to available editorial records and explanations from the parties concerned. ORLI may restrict or discontinue a compromised review process and take further action when justified. Relevant guidance is available through the COPE flowchart on suspected peer-review manipulation, the COPE flowchart on undisclosed conflicts of interest in a submitted manuscript, and the COPE Core Practices.

Ethical approval and informed consent. For research involving human participants, patient information, or other ethically sensitive material, ORLI may seek clarification regarding ethical approval, informed consent, privacy protections, or compliance with relevant requirements. The journal may request supporting documentation or refer concerns to the relevant institution or ethics committee. The response will take into account the COPE Core Practices on ethical oversight.

Editorial action will be proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and evidential basis of the concern. Depending on the circumstances and the stage of publication, possible actions include requesting an explanation or additional documentation, requiring revision, rejecting a manuscript, suspending editorial consideration while a concern is assessed, contacting an institution, correcting the published record, publishing an expression of concern, or retracting an article where justified.

For articles already published, ORLI will consider whether readers need to be informed and whether the scholarly record requires correction. The action selected will depend on the established facts and the impact of the problem on the article's reliability or integrity. ORLI will refer to the relevant COPE Core Practices on post-publication discussions and corrections and COPE's relevant misconduct flowcharts when determining the appropriate response.

Where an allegation is not substantiated, ORLI will not take action that implies misconduct has been established. The journal may close the matter after documenting its assessment and communicating the outcome to relevant parties as appropriate.

ORLI will maintain appropriate records of allegations, evidence received, correspondence, assessments, decisions, and follow-up actions, subject to confidentiality and applicable requirements. Relevant parties will be informed of decisions or next steps when appropriate and when doing so does not compromise a legitimate investigation.

Where a concern is referred to an institution or other body, ORLI may follow up on the matter and consider any findings or recommendations received. COPE's institutional guidance describes the importance of communication between journals and institutions and of informing journals of relevant outcomes where appropriate.

ORLI encourages concerns to be raised responsibly and in good faith. A report that is not substantiated after a fair assessment does not, by itself, demonstrate that the complainant acted maliciously. However, evidence that a report was knowingly fabricated or submitted in bad faith may be considered separately and handled appropriately.

The journal will seek to protect individuals who raise legitimate concerns from unnecessary disclosure or unfair treatment, within the limits of a fair process and applicable requirements. This provision is intended to support responsible reporting and should not be interpreted as a guarantee of absolute anonymity or immunity from all consequences.