Allegations of Research Misconduct

Jurnal Rekayasa Industri (JRI) takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct with the utmost seriousness. Every concern or complaint, whether regarding a submitted manuscript or a published article, is investigated objectively, confidentially, and in full compliance with the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Research Misconduct

In the domain of Industrial Engineering and Management, research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following practices:

Type	Examples in Industrial Engineering & Management Research
Fabrication	Inventing non-existent experimental data, factory measurement records, simulation outputs, optimization iterations, or survey participant responses.
Falsification	Manipulating experimental results, CAD diagrams, process flowcharts, statistical models, or optimization parameters; selectively omitting outlier data to artificially inflate model accuracy or system efficiency.
Plagiarism	Reproducing text, mathematical formulations, algorithms, simulation code, conceptual frameworks, or CAD/engineering models from other works without proper attribution, including self-plagiarism and translation plagiarism.
Redundant / Duplicate Publication	Submitting the same research findings concurrently to multiple outlets, or dividing a single comprehensive study into small parts to publish multiple papers (salami slicing).
Authorship Misconduct	Ghost authorship (omitting qualified contributors/students), gift/guest authorship (adding individuals without substantive contributions), or purchased authorship.
Peer Review & Citation Manipulation	Using fake reviewer details, participating in citation rings/cartels, or coercing authors into citing specific journals or editors without scientific justification.
Ethics & Safety Violations	Conducting ergonomics/human factors evaluations, occupational health and safety (OHS) field studies, or industrial plant surveys without proper ethical clearance, safety compliance, or informed consent; disclosing proprietary industry data without authorization.
Undisclosed Interests or Undeclared AI Use	Concealing relevant financial/industrial conflicts of interest, or failing to disclose the substantive use of generative AI tools in generating data, code, or paper content.

2. Reporting Misconduct Concerns

Anyone including readers, reviewers, editors, or industry partners may report a potential ethics violation or research misconduct.

Reports should be submitted in writing to the editorial office via email at jriuwm@gmail.com or through the journal's contact page, and must include:

The title and DOI (or manuscript ID) of the work concerned.
A clear, specific description of the alleged misconduct or irregularity
Supporting evidence, such as comparative links to overlapping papers, raw dataset discrepancies, or marked-up images/models.

Confidentiality: Anonymous reports will be considered only if sufficient, verifiable evidence is provided to enable a preliminary assessment. The identity of the whistleblower/complainant will be kept strictly confidential throughout the investigation.

3. Investigation Process

All allegations follow a structured, multi-step investigation protocol:

Acknowledgment: The journal acknowledges receipt of the report within 3–5 working days and records the case in the editorial tracking system.
Preliminary Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief, alongside an editor who has no conflict of interest with the submission, conducts an initial assessment to evaluate whether the complaint is backed by sufficient evidence and falls within the journal's remit.
Author Explanation: If the concern is substantiated, the author(s) will be formally notified of the allegation, provided with the supporting evidence, and given a fair opportunity to respond and submit relevant supporting materials (e.g., raw data logs, simulation files, or institutional ethics approvals).
Institutional Escalation & Expert Consultation: If the authors' response is inadequate, unsatisfactory, or reveals serious misconduct, Jurnal Rekayasa Industri (JRI) may consult independent peer experts or escalate the matter to the authors' home institution (such as Universitas Widya Mataram or partner universities/companies) or funding bodies for institutional investigation.
Final Decision & Notification: The Editorial Board determines the appropriate editorial action and formally notifies the authors, their institution, and the complainant.

4. Summary of Editorial Actions

Situation	Possible Action
Allegation Unsubstantiated	The case is closed without action, and all concerned parties are notified.
Minor Issue or Honest Error	A formal request for clarification, erratum, or Corrigendum is published.
Investigation Inconclusive or Ongoing	An Expression of Concern is published and linked to the online article.
Confirmed Misconduct (Manuscript Under Review)	Immediate rejection of the manuscript; formal notification sent to the authors' institution/department.
Confirmed Misconduct (Published Article)	Formal Retraction of the article in accordance with Jurnal Rekayasa Industri (JRI) Correction and Retraction Policy, along with notification to indexing databases and the authors' institution.

5. Guiding Principles

Presumption of Innocence & Fairness: Authors are presumed innocent until clear evidence proves otherwise and will always be granted a fair opportunity to present their side.
Confidentiality: All details, correspondence, and evidence are restricted to those directly involved in the investigation.
Independence: Any editor or reviewer with a potential conflict of interest is strictly recused from participating in the investigation or decision-making process.
Appeals Procedure: Authors may appeal an editorial decision regarding misconduct by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with new, verifiable scientific evidence or formal documentation.