Research Misconduct

1. Purpose and Scope

Padjadjaran Law Review (PLR) publishes work on the premise that what appears in the journal is honestly researched, accurately sourced, and properly credited. This policy sets out what PLR regards as research misconduct, how suspected cases are examined, and what may follow. It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and anyone else involved in a manuscript submitted to or published by PLR, and it is read together with PLR's Publication Ethics, Authorship Criteria, Conflict of Interest policy, Plagiarism Policy, and AI Policy. PLR's handling of cases is guided by the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. What PLR Treats as Misconduct

Honest mistakes and good-faith disagreement over legal interpretation are not misconduct. The following are.

Misrepresenting the work:

1) Inventing or altering data, interview material, or sources, including citing legislation, judgments, treaties, or literature that do not exist.
2) Distorting what a statute, decision, or authority actually says, or omitting contrary authority in order to mislead.
3) Submitting AI-generated text, analysis, or references that the author has not personally verified, or using AI without the disclosure required by the AI Policy.

Using the work of others without credit

Presenting another person's words, ideas, or findings as one's own, including close paraphrase and translation of another author's work without attribution.
Reusing one's own published or submitted work without disclosure.

Irregular publication practices:

1) Submitting the same manuscript to PLR and elsewhere at once, or publishing substantially the same work more than once.
2) Splitting a single study into several manuscripts without justification.
3) Citing sources unread, or arranging citations to raise someone's citation count.
4) False or distorted credit for authorship, as described in the Authorship Criteria.

Irresponsible research conduct:

1) Conducting interviews, surveys, or other research with human participants without informed consent or without protecting their confidentiality.

Interference with the editorial process

1) Proposing fictitious reviewers, reviewing one's own work, or breaching the confidentiality of a manuscript under review.
2) Concealing a conflict of interest that the Conflict of Interest policy requires to be disclosed.

3. Prevention

Every submission is screened with Turnitin. Under the Plagiarism Policy and AI Policy, manuscripts above the 20% limit are returned for revision or rejected, and authors confirm the originality of their work through the Declaration of Originality. Screening results are an aid and not a verdict: a low score does not clear a manuscript, and a high score does not by itself prove misconduct.

4. Raising a Concern

Anyone may raise a concern, whether about a manuscript in progress or a published article. Please write to padjadjaranlawreview@gmail.com with "Research Misconduct Concern" in the subject line, and give:

1) the manuscript or article concerned (with its DOI, if published);
2) what the concern is and why it is believed to be misconduct;
3) whatever evidence is available; and
4) how the sender can be reached.

Anonymous concerns are considered when they contain enough checkable detail to act on.

5. How a Concern Is Handled
1) Screening. The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the concern and checks it for substance and for whether it falls within Section 2. A concern without a sufficient basis is closed, and the sender is told.
2) Fact-finding. The editorial team examines the manuscript or article against the evidence, using similarity tools or other checks as appropriate.
3) Author's response. The corresponding author, speaking for all co-authors, receives the concern and the evidence and is given a stated period to respond.
4) Assessment. The editors weigh the response against the evidence. Independent experts, the editorial board, or COPE may be consulted.
5) Outside referral. In serious cases, the Editor-in-Chief may ask the authors' institution or funder to investigate.
6) Decision. The Editor-in-Chief makes a reasoned decision and communicates it in writing to the authors, and to the person who raised the concern where appropriate.

6. Outcomes by Seriousness

The response is proportionate to what was found.

1) Minor or inadvertent (for example, an isolated citation error or an honest oversight): the author is asked to correct the work, and a correction notice is published if the article is already out.
2) Significant (for example, undisclosed text reuse or AI use, or a substantial citation distortion): rejection of a manuscript under review, or a correction or expression of concern for a published article, with a written warning to the authors.
3) Serious or repeated (for example, fabricated sources or data, substantial plagiarism, duplicate publication, or review manipulation): rejection, or retraction of the published article, notification of the authors' institution or funder, and a restriction on further submissions to PLR for a period decided by the Editor-in-Chief.

A retracted article remains accessible and is clearly marked as retracted, with a notice explaining why.

7. Fairness to Those Involved
1) Concerns are handled in confidence. The identity of the person raising a concern is not revealed to the person concerned without consent, except where the law requires it.
2) No finding is made before the person concerned has had a genuine opportunity to respond.
3) A concern raised in good faith will not count against the person who raised it. A concern knowingly raised without basis may itself be treated as misconduct.

8. Concerns About Editors and Reviewers

The same process applies. An editor or reviewer who is the subject of a concern takes no part in handling it. If the concern is about the Editor-in-Chief, it will be handled by another senior member of the editorial board or referred to the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, under whose auspices PLR is managed.

9. Reconsideration

An author who disagrees with a decision may ask the Editor-in-Chief in writing to reconsider it within the period stated in the decision notice, setting out new evidence or a procedural error. Reconsideration is carried out by editors who took no part in the original decision, and the result is final.