Research Misconduct and Allegation Handling

Evidence preservation, conflict-free assessment, right of response, referral, and proportionate outcomes

Scope

This procedure covers fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated images or data, redundant publication, unethical research, false approvals or consent, authorship abuse, undisclosed conflicts, peer-review or citation manipulation, deceptive AI use, privacy violations, retaliation, and other conduct that may compromise a manuscript, review, decision, or published article. Honest disagreement or a correctable error is not automatically misconduct.

Submitting an Allegation

A report should identify the manuscript ID or DOI, the precise concern and location, supporting evidence or sources, the reporter's contact details, and relevant conflicts. Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently specific and evidenced, but anonymity can limit verification and follow-up. Reports should be sent through the official journal contact route and not posted publicly as an accusation.

Assessment Procedure

1. A sufficiently identified report is logged, acknowledged normally within seven working days, and screened for urgency, specificity, evidence, jurisdiction, legal or safety risk, and conflicts.
2. Conflicted persons are recused. The journal preserves manuscript versions, datasets supplied to it, reviewer records, metadata, correspondence, decisions, and other relevant evidence.
3. Affected authors, reviewers, editors, or other parties receive the material concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to justified confidentiality and safety limits.
4. The journal may obtain independent textual, methodological, statistical, image, ethics, data, technical, or legal advice.
5. When employment records, laboratories, participants, original data, or formal investigative powers are required, JPM refers the matter to an institution, ethics committee, funder, publisher authority, or regulator and cooperates with a fair investigation.
6. The responsible unconflicted editor records a reasoned outcome, evidence considered, conflicts, responses, referrals, actions, and any need for follow-up.

Possible Outcomes

• no further action, clarification, education, or manuscript revision;
• replacement of an editor or reviewer, rejection, cancellation of a compromised review, or a proportionate temporary submission restriction;
• institutional or regulatory referral; or
• post-publication discussion, correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or exceptional removal under the relevant dedicated policy.

A person affected by a journal decision may appeal a material factual or procedural error under the Appeals and Complaints Policy. JPM communicates only information that is necessary, lawful, and supported; it does not publish unproven misconduct findings as fact.