Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Jurnal Ilmiah Guru Madrasah (JIGM) is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record through fair editorial decisions, responsible research practices, transparent corrections, and appropriate action when concerns are raised.

Contents

1. Principles and standards
2. Editorial independence
3. Responsibilities of editors
4. Responsibilities of reviewers
5. Responsibilities of authors
6. Research involving people
7. Authorship and AI
8. Data and reproducibility
9. Research and publication misconduct
10. Handling allegations
11. Post-publication action
12. Complaints and appeals
13. Reporting an ethical concern

1. Principles and standards

JIGM bases its editorial practice on honesty, accountability, confidentiality, impartiality, transparency, respect for research participants, and preservation of the scholarly record. The journal uses the principles and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices as primary guidance when assessing ethical concerns.

Relevant guidance from recognised scholarly organisations may also be considered where appropriate to the article type and discipline. Guidance is applied to the facts of each case; it does not replace fair assessment, an opportunity to respond, or the journal's responsibility to reach an evidence-based decision.

2. Editorial independence and decision-making

• Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity, originality, and compliance with ethical requirements.
• Decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political position, institutional affiliation, seniority, personal relationship, or ability to pay.
• Article processing charges, waivers, sponsorship, advertising, and institutional relationships have no role in acceptance or rejection decisions.
• The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions, subject to conflict-of-interest safeguards and the journal's complaints and appeals process.
• The publisher supports editorial independence and must not interfere with individual editorial decisions for commercial, institutional, or personal reasons.

3. Responsibilities of editors

Editors must act when credible concerns arise, whether a manuscript is under review or has already been published. A concern must not be ignored solely because it was submitted anonymously, provided that it includes specific and assessable evidence.

4. Responsibilities of reviewers

• Accept review assignments only when they have sufficient expertise and can provide a timely, evidence-based assessment.
• Disclose any relationship or interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality.
• Treat the manuscript and all related material as confidential.
• Do not share, reproduce, upload, or disclose the manuscript without editorial permission.
• Do not upload confidential manuscripts or substantial manuscript content to public generative-AI systems or other external services that may retain data.
• Provide specific, respectful, and constructive comments; personal attacks and discriminatory language are unacceptable.
• Identify relevant uncited work, major errors, unsupported conclusions, possible duplicate publication, citation manipulation, image concerns, or suspected misconduct.
• Do not request citations primarily to increase citations to the reviewer, the editor, the journal, or associated publications.
• Do not use information obtained through peer review for personal, competitive, or commercial advantage.

5. Responsibilities of authors

• Submit work that is accurate, original, within scope, and not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
• Describe methods, sources, analyses, limitations, and relevant context with enough detail for the work to be assessed and, where applicable, reproduced or audited.
• Do not fabricate, falsify, manipulate, omit, or selectively report data or findings in a misleading manner.
• Cite sources accurately and fairly. Authors must verify that cited works exist, support the stated claims, and are represented correctly.
• Disclose funding, relevant conflicts of interest, ethical approval, informed consent, author contributions, data availability, and use of generative AI when applicable.
• Obtain permission for copyrighted material and protect confidential or identifying information.
• Respond honestly and promptly to editorial questions, reviewer comments, requests for underlying evidence, and post-publication concerns.
• Notify the journal promptly when a significant error is discovered and cooperate with correction or retraction where necessary.

6. Research involving people, vulnerable groups, or personal data

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, children, vulnerable groups, health information, private communications, or sensitive online activity must comply with applicable law, institutional requirements, and recognised ethical standards.

• Where ethical review is required, authors must state the name of the approving body and approval/reference number.
• Where formal ethical approval is not required, authors must state this and provide the ethical or institutional basis for the exemption when requested.
• Informed consent must be obtained and documented when applicable.
• Research involving children must include appropriate parent/guardian consent and, where appropriate, the child's assent.
• Consent for publication must be obtained when quotations, images, audio, video, case details, or other information may identify a participant.
• Researchers must minimise risk, maintain confidentiality, use proportionate data-security measures, and avoid unnecessary disclosure of personal information.
• For online and social-media research, authors must consider reasonable expectations of privacy, platform terms, consent, quotation traceability, and the risk of re-identification.

The journal may request supporting ethics documentation confidentially. Absence of required approval or consent may result in rejection, suspension of review, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

7. Authorship, contributorship, and generative AI

• Authorship is limited to individuals who made substantial scholarly contributions, participated in drafting or critically revising the work, approved the final version, and accept accountability for the publication.
• Guest, gift, honorary, and ghost authorship are prohibited.
• Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria must be acknowledged with their permission.
• The corresponding author must ensure that all authors approve the submission, author order, disclosures, and final published version.
• Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors require a reason and written agreement from all affected authors. The journal may refuse changes that cannot be adequately justified.
• Generative-AI systems and other non-human tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility, consent to publication, or manage conflicts of interest.
• Any permitted use of generative AI must be transparently disclosed in accordance with the journal's Generative AI Policy. Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy, originality, citations, confidentiality, and compliance.

8. Research data, records, and reproducibility

• Authors must retain research records for a period appropriate to the discipline, legal requirements, participant consent, and institutional policy.
• Each research article should include a Data Availability Statement explaining where supporting data can be accessed or why access is restricted.
• Sensitive, confidential, culturally restricted, or legally protected data need not be made public, but the restriction must be explained.
• Where relevant, authors should preserve and share instruments, coding frameworks, analytic scripts, protocols, search strategies, and supplementary materials needed to assess the work.
• The journal may confidentially request data or other supporting records when necessary to assess a submission or investigate a concern.
• Failure to provide supporting evidence without a reasonable explanation may affect the editorial decision or lead to post-publication action.

9. Research and publication misconduct

Conduct that may require investigation includes, but is not limited to:

10. Handling allegations and concerns

JIGM assesses concerns confidentially, consistently, and without unnecessary delay. The journal seeks relevant evidence and gives affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond.

1. 1. Receipt and documentation. The journal records the concern, the publication or submission involved, the evidence supplied, and any relevant conflict of interest.
2. 2. Initial assessment. An editor determines whether the concern is specific, credible, within the journal's remit, and potentially material to the scholarly record.
3. 3. Conflict management. Anyone with a relevant conflict is excluded. An independent editor or adviser may be appointed.
4. 4. Request for response or evidence. Authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or complainants may be asked for an explanation or supporting records.
5. 5. Proportionate investigation. The journal follows relevant COPE guidance and may consult the publisher, ethics advisers, research institutions, funders, or other journals where lawful and appropriate.
6. 6. Decision and action. Outcomes are based on the available evidence and may include no action, editorial guidance, manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other proportionate measures.
7. 7. Communication and recordkeeping. The journal records its reasoning and informs relevant parties to the extent permitted by confidentiality, data-protection, and legal obligations.

The journal investigates the reliability of the work and the integrity of the publication process; it does not determine criminal, employment, or disciplinary liability. Institutions may be asked to conduct matters that require access to records or powers unavailable to the journal.

11. Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

• Correction: used when an error affects part of the publication or its metadata but does not invalidate the central findings.
• Expression of concern: used when there are substantial unresolved concerns and an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, or delayed.
• Retraction: used when findings are unreliable, the work contains serious misconduct or unethical research, the publication is substantially redundant, or another major problem makes continued reliance unsafe.

Post-publication notices will identify the affected article, state the reason and initiating party where appropriate, be linked bidirectionally with the article, and remain freely accessible. A retracted article will ordinarily remain available as part of the scholarly record, clearly marked as retracted; it will not be silently deleted. Relevant metadata and DOI records will be updated where technically possible.

12. Complaints and appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can identify a material factual, procedural, ethical, or interpretive error. Disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient. Appeals should provide a concise, evidence-based explanation and must not contain abusive or discriminatory language.

A complaint concerning an editor will be handled by another editor or an appropriate representative of the publisher who was not involved in the disputed decision. An appeal will not be reviewed by a person whose own decision is the subject of the appeal. The outcome of the independent appeal review is final within the journal's internal process.

13. Reporting an ethical concern

Concerns should be submitted via email to [email protected]. Please identify the article or submission, describe the concern clearly, and provide supporting evidence or verifiable sources where possible.

Reports are handled as confidentially as practicable. The journal does not require a complainant to prove misconduct before reporting a concern, but knowingly false, abusive, discriminatory, or retaliatory allegations are not acceptable. Anonymous reports may be assessed when they contain specific and verifiable evidence.

Related JIGM policies

This statement should be read together with the journal's more specific editorial policies. Where a specific policy provides additional procedural detail, that policy applies consistently with this statement.

Policy ownership: The Editor-in-Chief and publisher are responsible for implementation. This policy is reviewed periodically and may be updated to reflect changes in recognised publication-ethics standards, law, technology, and journal practice. Material revisions will be identified by an updated effective date.

External guidance: COPE Core Practices and COPE Flowcharts.