Research Misconduct

Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal takes every allegation of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether it concerns a manuscript under review or an article that has already been published. Allegations are handled according to the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. What Counts as Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication: inventing data, sources, interview results, or court decisions.
• Falsification: manipulating, altering, or selectively omitting data or legal materials so that the findings are misrepresented.
• Plagiarism: using another person’s ideas, words, or work without proper acknowledgment, including self-plagiarism (text recycling) without disclosure.
• Duplicate or redundant publication: publishing the same work, or substantially the same work, in more than one journal or publication.
• Authorship misconduct: ghost, gift, or guest authorship, or adding or removing authors without their consent (see our Authorship Criteria).
• Citation manipulation: excessive or irrelevant self-citation, or citation arrangements intended to inflate citation metrics.
• Peer review manipulation: suggesting fake reviewers, reviewing one’s own work, or breaching the confidentiality of the review process.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to declare financial, institutional, or personal interests that could influence the work.
• Unethical research practice: conducting empirical research involving human participants, such as interviews or surveys, without informed consent or without protecting participants’ confidentiality.
• Undisclosed use of artificial intelligence, contrary to the journal’s AI Policy.

2. How to Report an Allegation

Anyone may report suspected misconduct, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and institutions. Reports should be sent to the Editor in Chief by email at redaksi.jbmh@unpad.ac.id with the subject line “Allegation of Research Misconduct”. A report should include:

• the title of the manuscript or article, and its DOI if available,
• a clear description of the suspected misconduct,
• supporting evidence, such as the original source, comparison documents, or relevant correspondence,
• the name and contact details of the person reporting.

The journal will consider anonymous reports if they are supported by sufficient, verifiable evidence. However, the journal may be unable to follow up on a report without enough information.

3. Confidentiality and Protection

All allegations are treated confidentially. The identity of the person reporting will not be disclosed to the accused party without that person’s consent. Throughout the investigation, the journal treats the accused party as not having committed misconduct until there is sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise. Allegations that are made in bad faith or are clearly unfounded may themselves be treated as misconduct.

4. Investigation Procedure

1. Initial review. The Editor in Chief acknowledges receipt of the report and assesses whether it has a reasonable basis and sufficient evidence.
2. Evidence gathering. The editorial team examines the manuscript or article, using tools such as similarity checking software where relevant, and gathers other necessary information.
3. Clarification from the author. The corresponding author is given the evidence and an opportunity to provide an explanation within a set time limit.
4. Evaluation. The editors evaluate the author’s response. If needed, they consult members of the editorial board, independent experts, or COPE.
5. Referral to the institution. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, or the case is serious, the journal may ask the author’s institution or funder to carry out its own investigation.
6. Decision. The Editor in Chief makes a final decision based on all the evidence and informs the relevant parties.

5. Possible Outcomes

Depending on how serious the misconduct is, actions may include:

• For manuscripts under review: returning the manuscript for revision, or rejecting it.
• For published articles: publishing a correction (erratum or corrigendum), an expression of concern, or a retraction. Retraction notices are linked to the original article, which stays on the website and is clearly marked “Retracted”.
• Further actions: notifying the author’s institution or funder, and barring the author from submitting to the journal for a set period.

Minor honest errors that do not affect the conclusions of the work will be handled through a correction rather than a sanction.

6. Misconduct by Editors or Reviewers

Allegations against members of the editorial team or reviewers are handled in the same way. An editor named in an allegation will not take part in handling it. If the allegation concerns the Editor in Chief, it will be handled by another senior member of the editorial board, or referred to the publisher, the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran.

7. Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor in Chief within 30 days of being notified. The appeal must include new evidence or arguments. Appeals are reviewed by editors who were not involved in the original decision, and the outcome of the appeal is final.