Allegations of Research Misconduct

JGTSS investigates credible concerns about the reliability and ethical production of its content, whether a manuscript is under review or already published. Reports may concern fabricated or altered evidence, plagiarism, citation manipulation, undisclosed interests, improper authorship, unethical fieldwork, image manipulation, paper-mill activity or interference with peer review. A disagreement with an interpretation alone is not evidence of misconduct.

Reporting and initial assessment

A report should identify the manuscript or article, describe the concern and provide specific evidence or sources where possible. Reports can be sent to jgtssintegrity@jandoopress.com; allegations involving an editor or the integrity office can be sent to jgtssappeals@jandoopress.com for independent assignment. Anonymous reports are considered when sufficiently specific to investigate. The journal limits disclosure of a reporter’s identity and does not promise absolute anonymity where lawful investigation requires disclosure.

The designated editor acknowledges receipt within five working days and aims to complete an initial assessment within fifteen working days. These are service targets, not promises of a final finding. The editor checks conflicts, secures relevant manuscript versions, reports, correspondence and metadata, and decides whether the concern is a scholarly dispute, an error that can be corrected or a matter requiring further inquiry. The person accused must not direct the assessment.

Inquiry and institutional involvement

The corresponding author receives a clear description of the material concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond with relevant records. Other authors may be contacted where their roles or knowledge matter. For social research, supporting evidence might include an approved protocol, de-identified recruitment records, analysis files, source documentation or a lawful route for verifying restricted field material. The journal does not demand public disclosure that would endanger participants.

Editors may obtain independent methodological, ethical or legal advice and contact an institution, funder or other competent body when the matter requires an investigation beyond the journal’s authority. The journal explains the information it needs to assess the publication while allowing the institution to determine individual responsibility. A missing response, unavailable raw data or an unresolved allegation is evaluated in context and is not automatically treated as proof of intentional misconduct.

Decisions and continuing communication

While inquiry continues, review or production may be paused. An expression of concern may be appropriate when readers need notice of a serious unresolved issue; it must describe uncertainty fairly. The responsible editor provides progress updates at least every thirty calendar days when an inquiry remains open, or explains an agreed alternative when disclosure could compromise an external investigation.

The final editorial action is based on the evidence and effect on the record. It may be no action, clarification, revision, rejection, correction, retraction or exceptional removal of particular content. A correction is not withheld because an author refuses agreement; disagreement is recorded where relevant. Published notices state reasons, dates and links without unnecessary personal accusations. Restrictions on future submissions, if justified, are proportionate, time-defined and independently reviewable. Authors or complainants may request review of a procedural failure through Complaints and Editorial Appeals. The journal retains a confidential account of the evidence, decisions and subsequent updates.

Last updated: 16 September 2026