Allegations of Research Misconduct

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Language, Technology, and Social Media (LTSM) takes credible concerns about research and publication integrity seriously. This policy explains how allegations concerning submitted or published material are received, assessed, investigated, and resolved while protecting fairness, confidentiality, due process, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

An allegation is not evidence of guilt. LTSM evaluates concerns objectively and proportionately, gives relevant parties an appropriate opportunity to respond, and distinguishes the journal's responsibility for the scholarly record from the responsibility of institutions or competent authorities to determine disciplinary misconduct.

1. Purpose and Definition

For the purposes of this policy, research or publication misconduct includes conduct, practices, or material irregularities that may compromise the reliability, attribution, ethical legitimacy, transparency, or integrity of submitted or published scholarly work.

Serious concerns may involve deliberate misconduct, questionable research practices, inappropriate publication practices, or substantial errors whose effects on the scholarly record require investigation.

LTSM does not require a concern to fit a single formal legal or institutional definition of misconduct before evaluating whether editorial action may be necessary.

2. Concerns Covered by This Policy

Research-integrity concerns may include, but are not limited to:

3. Data, Image, and Analytical Integrity

Data, figures, photographs, visualisations, statistical outputs, transcripts, computational results, and other research materials must accurately represent the underlying research.

Appropriate technical processing, such as adjustments necessary for clarity, may be acceptable where it does not distort or conceal relevant information. Selective alteration, deletion, duplication, fabrication, or manipulation that changes the scholarly meaning of the evidence is unacceptable.

Where data integrity is questioned, LTSM may request underlying datasets, original images, analysis files, code, laboratory records, instruments, documentation, or other information necessary for appropriate assessment.

4. Peer-Review and Publication-Process Manipulation

Manipulation of peer review or the publication process is treated as a serious research-integrity concern.

Potential indicators may include:

• fabricated reviewer identities or accounts;
• false or misleading reviewer email addresses;
• impersonation of legitimate researchers;
• undisclosed control of reviewer accounts by authors or third parties;
• coordination intended to generate predetermined reviewer recommendations;
• submission of fraudulent or fabricated peer-review reports;
• unauthorised interference by paper mills, agencies, brokers, or third parties;
• attempts to circumvent normal editorial or peer-review procedures; and
• other systematic activity intended to compromise editorial independence.

5. Who May Raise a Concern?

Research-integrity concerns may be raised by:

• authors or co-authors;
• reviewers;
• editors or editorial-board members;
• readers and researchers;
• research institutions;
• ethics committees or institutional review boards;
• funding agencies;
• indexing or abstracting services;
• publishers or other journals; or
• other individuals or organisations able to provide a credible concern.

The identity, professional position, academic status, institutional affiliation, or relationship of the complainant does not determine whether an allegation will be considered. The substance and supporting information are the primary considerations.

6. Information to Include in a Report

To support efficient assessment, reports should be as specific and evidence-based as reasonably possible.

Where available, the report should include:

• the title and DOI or URL of the article concerned;
• the manuscript identification number, where relevant;
• the author or authors concerned;
• a clear description of the alleged problem;
• specific passages, figures, tables, datasets, references, or other material relevant to the concern;
• links or copies of potentially overlapping publications;
• supporting documentation or evidence; and
• contact information for follow-up where the complainant is willing to provide it.

General accusations unsupported by sufficiently identifiable information may be difficult to investigate. However, LTSM may still examine a matter when the available information indicates a credible risk to the scholarly record.

7. Confidentiality and Fairness

Allegations and investigations will be handled with an appropriate degree of confidentiality. Information will normally be shared only with individuals or organisations whose involvement is reasonably necessary to assess or resolve the concern.

Editors will avoid presenting allegations as established facts before the available evidence has been appropriately assessed.

Persons responsible for handling an allegation should not have a competing interest that could reasonably compromise impartial assessment. Where such a conflict exists, responsibility should be transferred to another appropriate editor or representative.

LTSM seeks to protect both the integrity of the scholarly record and the legitimate interests of individuals involved in an investigation.

8. Investigation Procedure

The precise procedure may vary according to the nature and seriousness of the allegation. A typical assessment may involve the following stages:

9. Author and Contributor Response

When an allegation warrants further examination, the corresponding author or other relevant party will normally be informed of the concern and invited to provide a response.

Depending on the case, authors may be asked to supply:

• an explanation addressing the specific concern;
• original or underlying research data;
• analysis files or software outputs;
• original images or figures;
• research instruments;
• ethical approval or informed-consent documentation;
• authorship contribution information;
• institutional affiliation or identity verification;
• funding or competing-interest information; or
• other materials reasonably necessary for assessment.

Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct. However, the journal may proceed on the basis of the available evidence and may seek assistance from relevant institutions or other competent bodies when necessary.

10. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Journals are responsible for determining appropriate editorial and publication actions, but they generally do not have the authority or investigative resources to make institutional disciplinary findings.

Where a concern requires examination of activities, records, personnel, laboratories, research governance, or evidence outside the journal's reasonable access, LTSM may contact:

• the author's institution;
• a research-integrity or research-governance office;
• an ethics committee or institutional review board;
• a funding organisation;
• a regulatory or professional body; or
• another appropriate authority.

Where practicable and appropriate, relevant authors will normally be informed before an institutional referral is made.

LTSM may cooperate with legitimate institutional investigations and may request sufficient information concerning an investigation's outcome to determine what action is necessary for the scholarly record.

11. Allegations Concerning Submitted Manuscripts

When a significant integrity concern arises while a manuscript is under consideration, editorial processing may be temporarily suspended while the matter is assessed.

Possible outcomes include:

Rejection of a manuscript does not necessarily end an integrity investigation when the alleged conduct may affect other publications, individuals, institutions, or the scholarly record.

12. Allegations Concerning Published Articles

Concerns regarding published material will be evaluated regardless of how long ago the article was published when the concern could materially affect the reliability or integrity of the scholarly record.

Depending on the findings, LTSM may take one or more of the following actions:

• take no further action when the allegation is not substantiated;
• publish a correction;
• publish an editorial clarification or notice;
• publish an expression of concern while a significant matter remains unresolved;
• retract the article when its findings, attribution, or publication integrity are seriously compromised;
• correct authorship or other metadata where appropriate;
• notify relevant indexing and abstracting services where necessary;
• contact relevant institutions or authorities; or
• take another proportionate action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

13. Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction

The type of post-publication notice will be determined by the effect of the identified problem on the reliability and integrity of the article.

Detailed procedures are described in the Correction and Retraction Policy .

14. Author Agreement Is Not Always Required

LTSM will seek relevant author input wherever appropriate. However, responsibility for maintaining an accurate scholarly record rests with the journal.

When sufficient evidence demonstrates that a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial notice is necessary, appropriate action may be taken even when one or more authors disagree with that action.

15. Anonymous and Confidential Allegations

LTSM may consider anonymous allegations when they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable information to permit meaningful assessment.

Anonymous status does not make an allegation inherently unreliable, just as disclosure of identity does not make an allegation automatically valid.

Where a complainant requests confidentiality, the journal will make reasonable efforts to protect their identity, although absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure becomes legally required or essential to a fair and effective investigation.

16. Good-Faith Reporting and Repeated or Malicious Complaints

Individuals who raise research-integrity concerns in good faith should not be disadvantaged merely because an allegation is ultimately not substantiated.

At the same time, the journal may distinguish legitimate integrity concerns from communications that are knowingly false, abusive, threatening, defamatory, repeatedly duplicative without new evidence, or primarily directed toward personal disputes outside the journal's scholarly remit.

Closing an unsupported or repetitive complaint does not prevent the journal from examining materially new evidence if it is later provided.

17. Allegations Involving Editors or Editorial Board Members

Allegations involving an Editor-in-Chief, editor, reviewer, editorial-board member, journal staff member, or publisher representative must be handled in a manner that avoids inappropriate self-investigation or conflicts of interest.

Responsibility should be assigned to another suitably qualified and independent editor, publisher representative, or external adviser as appropriate to the case. An individual who is the subject of an allegation must not control the assessment or determine its outcome.

18. Third-Party Agencies, Paper Mills, and Organised Manipulation

LTSM does not permit undisclosed third parties to manipulate authorship, manuscript content, data, peer review, citations, acceptance decisions, or other parts of the publication process.

Evidence of coordinated or systematic manipulation may lead the journal to examine multiple related manuscripts or articles rather than treating each submission as an isolated event.

Where appropriate, LTSM may cooperate with other journals, publishers, research institutions, indexing services, or competent integrity bodies when coordinated activity potentially affects multiple publications.

19. Generative AI and Research Integrity

Use of generative artificial intelligence does not transfer responsibility away from human authors.

Research-integrity concerns may arise when AI-assisted systems are used to fabricate or distort:

• references or DOI information;
• research participants or quotations;
• data or analytical outputs;
• figures or images presented as authentic research evidence;
• ethical-approval information;
• peer-review reports;
• author or reviewer identities; or
• other scholarly material.

Authors should also consult the Generative AI Policy .

20. Documentation and Record Keeping

LTSM may retain appropriate records relating to research-integrity cases, including correspondence, evidence, editorial assessments, author responses, institutional communications, and final outcomes.

Access to such records is limited according to legitimate editorial, research-integrity, legal, privacy, and operational requirements.

21. Timeliness of Investigations

LTSM aims to assess integrity concerns without unnecessary delay. However, complex cases may require consultation with authors, reviewers, institutions, ethics committees, funders, or independent experts and may therefore require substantial time to resolve responsibly.

The journal will not sacrifice procedural fairness or evidentiary quality solely to meet an arbitrary deadline. Where a prolonged unresolved investigation creates a significant risk to readers, an appropriate interim editorial notice may be considered.

22. Protection of Editorial Independence

Research-integrity decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges, institutional prestige, academic status, commercial considerations, personal relationships, or the potential reputational consequences of an investigation.

No author is entitled to favourable treatment because an APC has been paid, and no legitimate allegation will be disregarded solely because the article has already been published or indexed.

23. Editorial Decisions and Institutional Findings

Findings from institutions and competent authorities may provide important evidence for editorial decision-making. However, the purposes of institutional disciplinary proceedings and journal publication decisions are not identical.

An institution may determine that formal misconduct has not been established while a correction or other publication action is still necessary because the published record contains a material error. Conversely, the journal may defer final action while a relevant institutional investigation is ongoing when the outcome is necessary for an informed editorial decision.

Related Research-Integrity Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal's other editorial and research-integrity policies.

24. Report a Research-Integrity Concern

Credible concerns regarding submitted or published material may be reported directly to the LTSM Editorial Office. Please provide sufficient detail and supporting information to permit an appropriate preliminary assessment.

Submission of an allegation does not imply that misconduct has occurred. All concerns are subject to appropriate editorial assessment.

25. Policy Framework

LTSM's procedures for research-integrity concerns are informed by internationally recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reference to COPE guidance identifies the ethical framework used to inform this policy and does not, by itself, constitute a claim that LTSM or its publisher is a member of COPE.

LTSM evaluates research-integrity concerns on their evidence and scholarly significance. The journal seeks to correct the record when necessary while ensuring that allegations are handled fairly, independently, confidentially, and proportionately.