Allegations of Research Misconduct

Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy

INCODING: Journal of Informatics and Computer Science Engineering is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously—whether raised before or after publication—and handles them strictly in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and Flowcharts.

1. Scope of Research and Publication Misconduct

Misconduct encompasses, but is not limited to, the following unethical practices:

  • Data and Result Fabrication: Inventing datasets, experimental logs, system outputs, or performance metrics and reporting them as genuine findings.
  • Falsification and Manipulation: Improperly manipulating research materials, experimental parameters, source code, images/screenshots, or statistical results so that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism and Redundant Publication: Appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, or submitting/publishing substantially the same manuscript in more than one journal (duplicate/salami publication).
  • Citation and Peer-Review Manipulation: Coercive or excessive self-citation, citation cartels, or attempting to manipulate the peer-review process (e.g., providing fabricated reviewer contact details).
  • Authorship and Conflict-of-Interest Violations: Guest/gift/ghost authorship, forged co-author consent, or failure to disclose material financial or institutional conflicts of interest.

2. Reporting Allegations (Whistleblowing Procedure)

Any reader, reviewer, editor, or institution suspecting research or publication misconduct in a submitted or published manuscript may submit a report supported by objective evidence to the Editor-in-Chief via email at incodingjournal@gmail.com or mahesarc1@gmail.com. The identity of whistleblowers acting in good faith will be kept strictly confidential.

3. Investigation Procedure

Upon receiving a credible allegation, the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board follow the step-by-step COPE investigation protocol:

  1. Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the specificity and documentary evidence of the allegation to determine whether a formal inquiry is warranted.
  2. Author Notification and Right of Response: The corresponding author (and relevant co-authors) is notified in writing of the specific concern and given a fair opportunity and reasonable timeframe to provide raw data, source code, documentation, or a written explanation.
  3. Expert & Institutional Consultation: If the author's response is unsatisfactory or inconclusive, the Editorial Board may consult independent technical reviewers or refer the case to the ethics committee/research integrity office of the author's institution.

4. Editorial Actions and Sanctions

When misconduct is substantiated by clear evidence, INCODING will apply proportionate sanctions depending on the severity of the violation:

  • Immediate rejection of a manuscript under review.
  • Publication of an Erratum / Corrigendum, an Expression of Concern, or a formal Retraction for a published article, linked permanently to the article's DOI.
  • Formal notification to the authors' institutional leadership or funding agency.
  • Prohibition of future submissions by the offending author(s) for a specified period (1 to 3 years).