Research Misconduct Policy

Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE)

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE) is committed to protecting the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the scholarly record. Research submitted to or published by the journal is expected to be conducted and reported in accordance with recognized principles of research integrity, responsible authorship, methodological transparency, and ethical scholarly communication.

The journal does not tolerate research misconduct or deliberate practices that distort, conceal, fabricate, manipulate, misrepresent, or improperly appropriate scholarly work. Concerns relating to possible misconduct are considered carefully, impartially, and confidentially, with appropriate attention to available evidence and the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved.

JRAIE distinguishes between intentional or serious research misconduct and genuine scholarly disagreement, methodological limitations, differences in interpretation, or inadvertent errors. An allegation of misconduct is not treated as proof of misconduct. Editorial action is based on evidence, seriousness of the concern, its potential effect on the reliability of the research record, and the outcome of appropriate assessment.

JRAIE follows internationally recognized research-integrity and publication-ethics principles, including relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal may consider applicable COPE recommendations and established research-integrity practices when addressing concerns related to misconduct, corrections, retractions, and protection of the scholarly record.

Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to:

Submitted manuscripts.
Accepted manuscripts.
Published articles.
Supplementary materials.
Research datasets and code submitted during editorial processing.
Reviewer reports.
Editorial communications.
Other scholarly materials associated with the publication process.

The policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial-board members, and other individuals involved in the journal’s scholarly communication process.

Research-integrity concerns may arise before peer review, during peer review, after acceptance, during production, or after publication. The journal may examine credible concerns regardless of the stage at which they are identified.

Forms of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

Fabrication

Fabrication involves creating data, observations, experiments, participants, citations, results, images, computational outputs, or other research information that did not actually exist and presenting such material as genuine evidence.

Simulation, synthetic data, modeled observations, or hypothetical examples are not considered misconduct when they are clearly identified and appropriately disclosed. Misconduct occurs when such material is falsely presented as real empirical evidence.

Falsification

Falsification involves inappropriate manipulation, alteration, omission, suppression, or selective modification of research materials, methods, data, images, computational parameters, or results in a way that materially misrepresents the research.

Legitimate data cleaning, preprocessing, statistical transformation, or analytical refinement is acceptable when transparently reported and methodologically justified.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, data, methods, images, tables, figures, code, or intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

Authors are responsible for accurate citation practices and obtaining permissions where required.

Similarity reports are considered as part of editorial assessment and are interpreted according to context rather than numerical similarity alone.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors should not submit or publish substantially similar work in multiple journals without appropriate disclosure and justification.

Redundant publication includes inappropriate reuse of data, findings, analysis, or conclusions without transparency.

Data Manipulation and Selective Reporting

Authors must report research data and findings accurately.

Integrity concerns may arise when authors intentionally conceal relevant results, manipulate datasets, suppress contradictory findings, or selectively report outcomes to create a misleading interpretation.

Image, Figure, and Visual Manipulation

Figures, images, graphs, screenshots, model visualizations, and other visual materials must accurately represent the underlying information.

Adjustments for clarity are acceptable only when they do not alter scientific interpretation.

Authorship Misconduct

Authorship should reflect genuine scholarly contribution and responsibility.

Misconduct may include:

Guest authorship.
Gift authorship.
Ghost authorship.
Exclusion of eligible contributors.
Unjustified addition or removal of authors.
Misrepresentation of author contributions.
Submission without approval of listed authors.

Citation Manipulation

References should be selected based on scholarly relevance.

The journal does not permit:

Coercive citation.
Artificial citation arrangements.
Excessive irrelevant self-citation.
Addition of unrelated references for metric manipulation.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Misrepresentation

Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Fabricating or falsely claiming ethical approval, informed consent, or institutional permission is considered a serious research-integrity concern.

Misconduct Involving Artificial Intelligence

Because JRAIE publishes research related to artificial intelligence, particular attention is given to transparency in AI-based research.

Potential AI-related misconduct may include:

Presenting AI-generated or synthetic data as genuine empirical data without disclosure.
Fabricating AI model outputs, benchmarks, or performance results.
Misrepresenting datasets used for training, validation, or testing.
Concealing important model limitations.
Manipulating benchmark comparisons.
Reporting nonexistent datasets, experiments, or computational procedures.
Providing fabricated references generated through automated systems.
Using AI tools in ways that compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or research integrity.

Use of AI tools is not automatically considered misconduct. Authors remain responsible for verifying accuracy, originality, citations, data, analysis, and conclusions.

Authors should provide sufficient transparency regarding AI tools, datasets, computational methods, models, and evaluation procedures used in their research.

Reporting Suspected Research Misconduct

Any person who identifies a credible research-integrity concern involving a submitted or published article may contact the editorial office.

Reports should include, where possible:

Manuscript or article information.
Description of the concern.
Relevant evidence or documentation.
Supporting datasets, images, references, or related information.

Anonymous concerns may be considered when sufficient evidence is provided.

Individuals reporting concerns in good faith should not face retaliation, discrimination, or disadvantage because they have raised a legitimate research-integrity concern.

Investigation Procedure

The journal may conduct an initial assessment to determine:

Whether the concern falls within this policy.
Whether sufficient information is available.
Whether further investigation is required.

Where appropriate, the journal may:

Review relevant manuscripts, data, images, code, and editorial records.
Request explanations from authors.
Request supporting documentation.
Consult experts or research-integrity advisers.
Contact institutions or responsible authorities where necessary.

Investigations are conducted objectively, fairly, and confidentially.

Actions Before Publication

If misconduct concerns arise before publication, possible actions may include:

Requesting clarification.
Requiring additional evidence.
Revision requests.
Manuscript rejection.
Withdrawal of acceptance.
Referral to relevant institutions.

Actions After Publication

Where concerns arise after publication, the journal may consider:

Correction.
Expression of Concern.
Retraction.
Updating article information.
Notification of relevant services or institutions where necessary.

The purpose of post-publication action is to protect the reliability of the scholarly record.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Corrections may be issued when errors affect part of an article but do not invalidate the entire work.

Retraction may be considered when findings are unreliable because of major error, misconduct, plagiarism, unethical research, or other serious concerns.

Expressions of Concern may be issued when significant questions exist but available evidence is insufficient for immediate correction or retraction.

Reviewer and Editor Misconduct

Research-integrity responsibilities also apply to reviewers and editors.

Potential misconduct may include:

Breach of confidentiality.
Misuse of unpublished information.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Citation manipulation.
Misappropriation of ideas or data.
Improper influence on editorial decisions.

Concerns involving reviewers or editors will be handled appropriately and independently.

Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors or affected parties may request reconsideration of editorial actions when they believe:

Important evidence was overlooked.
Procedures were not followed appropriately.
New relevant information has become available.

Requests should include clear reasons and supporting evidence.

Relationship With Other Journal Policies

This Research Misconduct Policy operates together with the journal’s:

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Peer Review Policy.
Authorship Policy.
Data Availability Policy.
Research Data Sharing Policy.
Other relevant editorial policies.

Together, these policies establish JRAIE’s framework for maintaining research integrity, transparency, accountability, and responsible scholarly communication.

Protection of the Scholarly Record

The principal objective of this policy is to protect the accuracy and integrity of scholarly communication.

JRAIE addresses credible concerns consistently, proportionately, and without unnecessary delay. Decisions regarding corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, manuscript rejection, or institutional referral are based on evidence, seriousness of the issue, and potential impact on the reliability of the research record.

The journal may update this policy as scholarly publishing standards, research-integrity practices, and responsible AI research methods continue to develop.