Allegations of Misconduct Policy

The Journal of Neurosurgery Academy is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. The journal follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling allegations of research and publication misconduct.

Definition of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct refers to practices that compromise the integrity, reliability, or trustworthiness of scholarly research and publishing. Misconduct may involve authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, or any other individuals participating in the publication process.

Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Fabrication: Making up data, results, or research findings and recording or reporting them as genuine.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, images, or results such that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, data, processes, results, or words without proper acknowledgment or permission.
  • Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially similar work in more than one journal without proper disclosure or justification.
  • Authorship Misconduct: Improper attribution of authorship, including guest, gift, or ghost authorship.
  • Peer Review Manipulation: Interfering with or compromising the integrity of the peer-review process.
  • Citation Manipulation: Inappropriate citation practices intended to artificially increase citations.
  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failure to disclose relationships or interests that could influence the research or publication process.
  • Ethical Violations: Failure to obtain required ethical approvals, participant consent, or comply with relevant research ethics standards.
  • Breach of Confidentiality: Unauthorized disclosure or misuse of confidential information obtained through research, editorial, or peer-review activities.

Honest errors, differences in scientific opinion, or reasonable disagreements in interpretation do not constitute misconduct.

Reporting Allegations

Allegations of misconduct may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, or any other concerned party at any stage before or after publication.

Allegations should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact email. All allegations will be treated seriously, fairly, and consistently, regardless of the source of the complaint.

Confidentiality

The journal will maintain confidentiality throughout the investigation process while ensuring a fair and thorough assessment. The identities of complainants, respondents, and relevant parties will be protected where appropriate and permitted by law.

Assessment and Investigation Procedure

  1. Preliminary Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial review to determine whether the allegation has sufficient basis and falls within the scope of research or publication misconduct.
  2. Formal Inquiry: If warranted, a formal investigation will be initiated. Relevant evidence, documentation, correspondence, and research records may be requested and reviewed.
  3. Response from Involved Parties: The authors or other individuals concerned will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide explanations or supporting evidence.
  4. Consultation: The journal may consult editorial board members, independent experts, institutions, or other relevant authorities when necessary.
  5. Decision: The Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board will evaluate the evidence and determine appropriate actions in accordance with COPE guidelines and journal policies.

Outcomes and Corrective Actions

If an allegation is not substantiated, no further action will be taken, and the matter will be considered closed.

If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may take one or more of the following actions, depending on the severity of the case:

  • Reject the manuscript.
  • Request corrections to the manuscript.
  • Publish a correction (erratum or corrigendum).
  • Publish an expression of concern.
  • Retract the article.
  • Remove the article where legally required.
  • Notify the authors' institutions, employers, funding agencies, or relevant authorities.
  • Restrict future submissions from the individuals involved for an appropriate period.

Post-Publication Misconduct

If misconduct is identified after publication, the journal will investigate the matter promptly and take appropriate corrective action, including correction, expression of concern, or retraction, following COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Appeals

Authors or other affected parties may appeal decisions related to misconduct investigations within 30 days of notification. Appeals must provide a clear justification and any additional supporting evidence. The journal may seek independent expert review before reaching a final decision. Decisions made after the appeal process will be considered final.