Allegations of Misconduct

MUKADIMAH is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and upholding ethical standards in research and publication. This policy explains how the journal receives, assesses, and addresses allegations of misconduct, guided by the relevant guidelines and procedures of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope and Definitions

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to or published in MUKADIMAH and to authors, reviewers, editors, and others involved in its publication process. Concerns may be raised before or after publication.

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Fabrication: Inventing data, sources, evidence, or findings and presenting them as authentic.

  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, documents, images, procedures, or data, or selectively changing or omitting evidence in ways that misrepresent the research.

  • Plagiarism: Using another person’s ideas, words, findings, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

  • Redundant Publication and Inappropriate Text Recycling: Republishing substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment.

  • Authorship Misconduct: Including individuals who do not meet the journal’s authorship criteria, excluding eligible contributors, or misrepresenting contributions through gift, guest, honorary, or ghost authorship.

  • Citation Manipulation: Adding, requesting, or coordinating citations primarily to inflate citation counts or otherwise distort the scholarly record.

  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose relevant financial, professional, personal, or institutional interests that could influence research, peer review, or editorial decisions.

  • Breaches of Research Ethics: Failing to obtain required ethical approval or informed consent, violating participant confidentiality, or otherwise disregarding applicable ethical requirements.

  • Peer Review Manipulation: Using fabricated reviewer identities, submitting fraudulent reviews, or improperly influencing the review or editorial process.

Honest errors and legitimate differences in interpretation do not, by themselves, constitute misconduct. Nevertheless, errors affecting the accuracy or reliability of an article may require correction or retraction.

2. Principles for Handling Allegations

MUKADIMAH takes concerns seriously and assesses them on the basis of their specificity, supporting evidence, and relevance, regardless of who raises them.

The journal follows these principles:

  • Fairness and impartiality: An allegation is not treated as proof of misconduct. Individuals concerned will have a reasonable opportunity to respond.

  • Confidentiality: Information will be shared only with those who need it to assess or resolve the matter, subject to applicable legal and institutional requirements.

  • Protection of complainants: The journal will protect the identity of individuals reporting concerns in good faith as far as reasonably possible and will not tolerate retaliation within its editorial processes.

  • Independence: Editors or reviewers with relevant conflicts of interest will not participate in assessing the case or deciding its outcome.

  • Timeliness: Cases will be addressed without unnecessary delay, with progress updates provided where appropriate.

  • Proportionality: Editorial action will reflect the evidence, seriousness of the concern, and implications for the scholarly record.

3. Reporting an Allegation

Concerns should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the contact details published on the journal’s website.

Reports should identify the manuscript or article concerned and provide a clear explanation of the alleged misconduct, together with supporting evidence where available. Relevant information may include the manuscript ID, article title, DOI, disputed passages, source documents, or correspondence.

Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. Concerns raised publicly may also be assessed.

If an allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be directed to the publisher through the journal’s published contact channels. An editor or independent adviser without a conflict of interest will be assigned to handle the case.

4. Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, or an independent designee, will assess whether the concern falls within this policy and whether sufficient information is available to proceed.

The journal may request clarification or additional evidence. Reports that are unsupported, insufficiently specific, or outside the journal’s remit may be closed, with an explanation to the complainant where possible. Cases may be reopened if substantial new evidence becomes available.

The journal may temporarily pause peer review or publication while a credible concern is examined.

5. Editorial Examination and Institutional Referral

When further examination is warranted, the journal will notify the individuals concerned, explain the relevant allegations, and request a written response within a reasonable stated timeframe. Supporting information will be shared to the extent necessary for a meaningful response while protecting confidential information.

The examination may include reviewing manuscripts, published articles, source materials, research data, images, ethical approvals, consent documentation, peer review records, and relevant correspondence. Independent subject specialists or research integrity advisers may be consulted.

The journal’s role is to assess the integrity of its editorial processes and published record. Formal investigations into researchers’ conduct generally fall within the responsibility of their institutions or other competent bodies.

Where appropriate, MUKADIMAH will refer concerns to the relevant institution, employer, funding body, or research integrity authority and request information about the outcome. Authorship disputes that cannot be resolved through documented agreement may also require institutional adjudication.

The journal may take action to protect readers while an institutional investigation is pending. Clear evidence that published content is unreliable may justify editorial action without waiting for a final institutional finding.

6. Outcomes and Editorial Actions

Decisions will be based on the available evidence and the implications for the article’s reliability and integrity. Possible actions include:

  • Closure without further action: Where concerns are satisfactorily resolved or insufficient evidence supports further action.

  • Clarification or revision: Requesting explanations, disclosures, attribution, or amendments to a manuscript.

  • Correction: Publishing a correction where a limited error or omission can be addressed without invalidating the article as a whole.

  • Rejection: Declining a manuscript where substantiated concerns make it unsuitable for publication.

  • Expression of Concern: Alerting readers to substantial unresolved concerns when evidence is inconclusive or an investigation remains pending.

  • Retraction: Retracting an article when the evidence warrants this action under the journal’s policies and relevant COPE guidance.

  • Referral or notification: Informing relevant institutions or other responsible bodies when further investigation or action is necessary.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retraction notices will clearly explain their purpose and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles will ordinarily remain accessible and clearly marked as retracted to preserve the scholarly record.

Retraction serves to correct the literature, rather than to punish authors, and may be necessary whether unreliability results from misconduct or honest error. Author disagreement does not prevent justified editorial action.

7. Appeals

Individuals who wish to appeal a decision should submit a written appeal through the journal’s editorial contact, identifying the decision and explaining any procedural concerns, factual errors, or substantial new evidence.

Where practicable, an editor or independent adviser who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest will assess the appeal. The outcome and reasons will be communicated to the appellant.

An appeal does not automatically suspend action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

8. Records and Communication

MUKADIMAH will maintain confidential records of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessments, and decisions. Access will be restricted to those with a legitimate role in handling the matter.

Outcomes will be communicated to the relevant parties as appropriate, subject to confidentiality requirements. Where published content requires amendment, the journal will issue a public notice explaining the action taken.

9. Prevention and Policy Review

MUKADIMAH promotes research and publication integrity through clear author and reviewer guidance, appropriate editorial screening, independent peer review, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and editorial training.

Similarity-checking tools may support assessment, but their results will be interpreted in context and will not, on their own, establish misconduct.

This policy will be reviewed periodically and updated to reflect developments in publication ethics and the journal’s editorial practices.

COPE resources: