Policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct

Justitia et Pax is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record in legal research. This policy explains how JEP receives, assesses, and handles allegations of research misconduct, both for manuscripts under review and for published articles. The process follows COPE guidance.

1. Scope

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants. Misconduct includes, among others:

  • Fabrication – inventing data, interviews, case law, statutes, quotations, or references.
  • Falsification – misrepresenting or distorting legal sources, data, or findings, for example by misquoting a court decision or presenting a repealed regulation as valid.
  • Plagiarism – using the words, ideas, or analysis of others without acknowledgement, including self-plagiarism and unacknowledged translation of foreign-language works.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication without disclosure, including the same article in Bahasa Indonesia and English without citing the first.
  • Authorship misconduct – ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
  • Research ethics violations – absence of ethical clearance or informed consent in empirical legal research, or disclosure of confidential or protected information from cases, clients, or proceedings.
  • Peer review manipulation – fake reviews, fake reviewer identities, or collusion.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding, including undisclosed involvement as counsel or party in a case discussed in the article.
  • Unverified AI-generated content – fabricated legal citations produced by AI tools.

Honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement about legal interpretation are not misconduct.

2. Subject

Anyone may raise an allegation. Anonymous allegations may be considered when supported by sufficient and verifiable evidence.

3. Submit an Allegation

Allegations should be submitted in writing to jep@mail.uajy.ac.id., with:

  • Title, authors, and DOI or ID of the manuscript or article.
  • A clear description of the alleged misconduct.
  • Supporting evidence (links, files, screenshots, similarity reports, or comparison materials).
  • Contact details of the person raising the concern (optional).

4. Handling Procedure

  1. The editorial office acknowledges the allegation and records it in a confidential register.
  2. Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor decides whether the allegation is credible and within the journal's remit. An editor with a conflict of interest does not take part.
  3. Request for explanation. The authors are informed and asked to respond in writing within 10 days. The identity of the complainant is protected as far as possible.
  4. The Editorial Board may consult independent experts, run similarity or source checks, request the underlying materials, or ask the authors' institution to investigate.
  5. The Editorial Board decides on action in proportion to the evidence and tells the authors and complainant.
  6. The case, evidence, and decision are documented and kept securely.

5. Possible outcomes

Finding

Action

Not substantiated

Case closed; parties informed.

Honest error or minor misconduct

Corrigendum or erratum; caution or guidance to authors.

Serious unresolved concerns

Expression of concern while the matter is investigated.

Proven serious misconduct

Retraction in line with the journal's correction and retraction policy and COPE guidelines.

Misconduct in a manuscript under review

Manuscript rejected or its processing stopped.

Severe or repeated misconduct

Notification of institutions, funders, or authorities; restrictions on future submissions.

 

6. Confidentiality and Protection of Complainants

Information about allegations is kept confidential and shared only with those who need to know. The journal does not tolerate retaliation against complainants acting in good faith. Allegations made in bad faith may themselves be treated as misconduct.

7. Rights of the Authors

Authors have the right to know the allegation, to respond fairly, and to receive the decision with reasons.

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal in writing to jep@mail.uajy.ac.id. of the decision, giving reasons and any new evidence. The appeal is reviewed by Editorial Board members not involved in the original decision. The result is final at journal level.

9. Role of Institutions

The journal cannot impose academic or employment sanctions. Where serious misconduct is suspected, it may ask the authors' institution or funder to investigate, and will cooperate with that process.