Research Misconduct

Penamas is committed to the integrity of the scholarly record. This page defines research misconduct, explains how allegations are reported and handled, and describes the actions the journal takes. It operates together with the Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Notice, Correction and Retraction, and AI Policy pages.

1. What the journal treats as research misconduct

Fabrication: making up research data or information.
Falsification: manipulating or altering research data, materials, images, or information.
Plagiarism: taking part or all of another person’s work without proper acknowledgement; rewriting another’s work without using one’s own words even when the source is cited; or reusing one’s own published work without proper citation (self-plagiarism).
Unauthorized authorship: adding a person who made no contribution to the work; omitting a person who did; or having another person write the work without crediting that contribution (ghost authorship).
Undisclosed conflict of interest: producing or handling an article in order to benefit or disadvantage a particular party.
Multiple submission and redundant publication: submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal, or publishing substantially the same findings more than once without cross-reference or justification.
Unethical research: research involving humans or animals conducted without the required ethical approval, or without informed consent.
Other breaches of academic integrity under applicable laws and regulations.

A similarity-check percentage is only an indicator. It does not by itself prove plagiarism. The editors look at the detail of the report, especially a large match with one specific work, and distinguish it from properly quoted text.

2. Who may report

Anyone may report a concern, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and institutions. Reports concern manuscripts under review as well as articles already published.

3. How to report

Email penamasjurnal@gmail.com with the subject line “Research Misconduct Report”. Please include:

the title, authors, and DOI (or manuscript ID) of the work concerned;
a description of the concern and the evidence supporting it, such as data, matching sources, or documents;
your name, affiliation, and email address.

Reports made in good faith are treated confidentially. The journal does not disclose the identity of a reporter to the authors without the reporter’s consent, except where this is required by law or by an investigating institution. Retaliation against a person who reports in good faith is not tolerated. Anonymous reports are considered only when they contain verifiable evidence.

4. How allegations are handled

Penamas applies a documented procedure with five stages:

Initial evidence check. Within 14 days of receipt, the editors confirm that the report concerns Penamas and is supported by enough evidence to proceed. The reporter is told whether the case is taken up.
Clarification. The corresponding author, and where relevant the co-authors, are informed of the concern and asked for a written explanation and supporting data within 30 days.
Investigation. The Editor-in-Chief appoints an investigating panel of at least two editors or independent experts, none of whom has a conflict of interest. The panel may request original data, ethical approvals, and further similarity or image checks, and may consult the authors’ institution.
Decision. The panel reports to the Editor-in-Chief, who decides on the case together with the editorial board, normally within 90 days of the start of the investigation. The authors and the reporter are informed of the outcome and its basis.
Corrective action. The journal carries out the actions in section 5 and records them.

If the person concerned is the Editor-in-Chief or another editor, that person takes no part in the case, and the matter is referred to the head of the publishing institution, Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan Agama Jakarta.

5. Possible outcomes and actions

Manuscript under review: rejection, with notification to the authors, and where the misconduct is serious, a restriction on future submissions for a stated period or permanently.
Published article, error that does not undermine the main findings: a correction (erratum or corrigendum).
Published article, misconduct or a serious error that makes data, findings, or conclusions unreliable: retraction.
Manuscript not yet officially published: withdrawal.
Further steps: a written notice to the authors’ institution, funder, or relevant authority, and a formal reminder or warning to the person responsible.

Each notice of correction or retraction is public, names the article, the type of action, the reason, and the party that decided. It is linked to the article and reflected in the DOI and metadata. A retracted article stays on the website and in the archive, and is clearly marked as retracted on the article page, in the full-text file, and in the metadata. The journal never removes an article without a public notice. Details are on the Correction and Retraction page.

6. Action taken by the authors

Authors who spot a significant error in their own published work must notify the journal promptly. Timely, transparent self-correction is taken into account when the journal decides on its response.

7. Research ethics

Manuscripts reporting research with human participants must state the number and year of the ethical clearance from the relevant committee, or include an authors’ statement on ethical compliance that has been approved by the reviewers or editors for low-risk research. Missing or false ethical information may lead to the actions above.