Research and Publication Misconduct Policy

This policy defines forms of research and publication misconduct relevant to manuscripts submitted to, reviewed by or published in the journal. It also explains how the journal should assess an allegation while protecting the integrity of the scholarly record and treating all parties fairly. An allegation is not a finding of misconduct. English is the reference version; Uzbek and Russian versions express the same policy.

This policy expands the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. The journal may assess its submission, review and publication records, request explanations and evidence, and decide what action is needed for its own publication record. It must not claim institutional or legal investigative powers it does not have. VERIFY notes identify operational arrangements requiring editorial confirmation. No fixed response or investigation deadline is asserted.

Contents

  1. Scope, Principles and Reporting
  2. Fabrication
  3. Falsification
  4. Plagiarism
  5. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling
  6. Duplicate and Redundant Publication
  7. Citation Manipulation
  8. Peer-Review Manipulation
  9. Authorship Manipulation
  10. Undeclared Conflict of Interest
  11. Unethical Research
  12. Image and Data Manipulation
  13. Assessment of an Allegation
  14. Requesting an Explanation from Authors
  15. When an Institution May Be Contacted
  16. Editorial Decisions, Corrections and Retractions

1. Scope, Principles and Reporting

Research misconduct concerns the integrity of the research itself; publication misconduct concerns the preparation, submission, peer review, attribution or dissemination of scholarly work. The categories below may overlap. Honest error, a disputed interpretation or an unconfirmed allegation must not automatically be labelled misconduct. Assessment should consider the evidence, seriousness, effect on the record and any relevant pattern.

A concern should identify the manuscript or article and provide checkable information. It may be submitted under the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy to admin@srt-journal.uz. Send only material that may lawfully and ethically be shared. The journal should protect confidential information as far as a fair assessment permits and should not retaliate against a person merely for raising a concern in good faith.

VERIFY M1 — Confirm who monitors the published address, records allegations, performs initial conflict screening and assigns an unconflicted case handler. Mail delivery and a separate escalation channel have not been verified; no acknowledgement time is promised.

2. Fabrication

Fabrication is making up data, observations, participants, interviews, experiments, sources or results and presenting them as real. It includes reporting research that did not occur or inventing records to support a conclusion.

A discrepancy is not by itself proof of fabrication. Relevant checks may include consistency between the manuscript, supplied data and methods; the existence and provenance of records; and a qualified assessment of technical evidence. The journal should not make a direct accusation before the author has an opportunity to explain the specific concern.

3. Falsification

Falsification is changing, omitting, suppressing or selectively presenting research materials, equipment, processes, data or results so that the research record is materially misrepresented. Selective reporting becomes misconduct when it is intended to create a misleading account, not merely because authors made a defensible analytical choice.

Assessment should distinguish deliberate distortion from error, inadequate reporting and legitimate data cleaning. Original records, protocols, analysis files and a reasoned explanation may be requested where relevant and lawful. Technical evidence should be assessed by a suitably qualified, unconflicted person when the issue exceeds the editor’s expertise.

4. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, images, methods or other intellectual work as one’s own without adequate attribution and, where required, permission. It may involve direct copying, close paraphrase that conceals the source, translation plagiarism or unattributed reuse of non-text material.

A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism. The journal should examine the location, character and extent of overlap, quotation and citation, permissions, disciplinary conventions and the significance of the borrowed material. The journal’s Plagiarism Policy provides the related screening policy.

5. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Self-plagiarism or inappropriate text recycling occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own previously disseminated work without transparent citation or disclosure, creating a misleading impression of originality. Reuse of text is not assessed mechanically: limited standard wording in methods may differ from reuse of results, discussion, figures or an entire argument.

The journal should consider what was reused, whether the earlier source was cited, whether copyright or licence terms permit the reuse, and whether readers are misled about novelty. Transparent, limited and justified reuse does not automatically amount to misconduct; concealed or extensive duplication may require editorial action.

6. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication is the submission or publication of substantially the same work, data or findings more than once without appropriate disclosure, cross-reference or justification. Simultaneous submission to more than one journal is prohibited because it can cause duplicated editorial and peer-review work.

Legitimate secondary publication, translations, conference abstracts, preprints or reports require case-specific assessment and transparent disclosure; their existence should not automatically be called duplicate publication. Authors should identify related manuscripts and explain overlap. The journal should compare the records and determine whether readers and editors were materially misled.

7. Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation includes coercing, arranging or adding references principally to inflate citation counts or serve irrelevant personal, journal or organisational interests. It may involve unjustified citation requests by reviewers or editors, citation cartels, or authors adding references unrelated to the claims they supposedly support.

A request for relevant literature is not misconduct merely because it may increase citations. The assessment should consider relevance, necessity, the pattern and purpose of requests, the power relationship and whether acceptance was made dependent on irrelevant citations. Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant interests and must not use their role to manipulate metrics.

8. Peer-Review Manipulation

Peer-review manipulation includes fabricated reviewer identities or reports, false contact details, impersonation, unauthorised access to the review system, coordinated sham reviews, interference with reviewer selection, or attempts to influence a decision through concealed relationships. Reviewers also commit misconduct if they misuse confidential manuscripts or appropriate ideas before publication.

Unusual speed, shared contact information or a technical pattern may justify further checks but does not alone prove manipulation. The journal may verify identities and affiliations, review system records and correspondence, and obtain an independent review where appropriate. Confidential reviewer information must remain restricted to people who need it for the assessment.

VERIFY M2 — Confirm which identity checks, account/log review, audit records and technical evidence are actually available in OJS and who is authorised to inspect them. No automated fraud-detection system or forensic capability is claimed.

9. Authorship Manipulation

Authorship manipulation includes knowingly listing a guest or gift author, concealing a ghost author, selling or purchasing authorship, misrepresenting contributions, changing the author list to influence review or credit, or submitting an authorship change with fabricated consent. It may also involve excluding a person who meets the journal’s authorship criteria.

The journal should seek contribution records, correspondence and the agreement of all affected authors in accordance with the Authorship and Contributorship Policy. The journal can decide how its byline and contributor record should be presented, but institutions may need to resolve disputed facts about work performed under their authority.

10. Undeclared Conflict of Interest

A material financial, personal, professional, academic or institutional relationship that could reasonably affect judgement must be disclosed where the journal’s policies require it. Concealment or a knowingly false declaration may constitute publication misconduct, particularly when it affects study interpretation, peer review or an editorial decision.

Non-disclosure is not automatically proof of intentional misconduct. The journal should establish what disclosure was required at the relevant time, whether the relationship was material, what the person understood, and whether the omission affected the process or published record. A conflicted editor or adviser must not decide the allegation.

11. Unethical Research

Unethical research may include serious failure to protect human participants or animals, absence or misrepresentation of required ethics review or consent, unauthorised use of personal or sensitive data, harmful procedures without appropriate justification, or departure from an approved protocol that materially affects ethical acceptability.

The journal should request the ethics approval or exemption, consent information and relevant protocol when needed, while avoiding unnecessary collection of personal data. Documents should be assessed in their jurisdictional and disciplinary context. The journal must not claim to replace an ethics committee, regulator or institution that has legal authority over the research.

12. Image and Data Manipulation

Unacceptable manipulation includes adding, removing, moving, duplicating or selectively enhancing image features or altering data in a way that misrepresents the original observation. Adjustments applied uniformly for clarity may be acceptable when they do not obscure, eliminate or fabricate information and are disclosed where needed.

The journal may request original image files, uncropped views, source data, processing steps and analysis code when relevant and proportionate. Metadata or visual anomalies are indicators requiring explanation, not automatic findings. Specialist assessment may be needed. Any transfer of sensitive or proprietary data must have an appropriate basis and secure handling.

13. Assessment of an Allegation

The journal should use a fair, documented and proportionate process. Its purpose is to determine what action is needed for the manuscript, review process or published record; a full investigation into a researcher’s employment or legal responsibility normally belongs to the relevant institution or competent body.

  1. Receive and preserve the allegation and supplied evidence without treating it as established fact.
  2. Identify the manuscript, article, review or editorial process affected; classify the alleged conduct and check the journal’s authority to assess it.
  3. Screen the assigned editor or case handler for conflicts of interest and arrange an unconflicted route where necessary.
  4. Conduct a preliminary evidence check, including comparison with available records and suitably qualified advice where needed. Avoid unnecessary disclosure of identities or confidential files.
  5. Send the specific concerns and relevant evidence to the affected author or person and consider their response together with the record.
  6. Decide a proportionate editorial outcome, whether institutional referral is warranted, and whether the publication record requires correction, retraction, an expression of concern or no action. Record the reasons and communicate the outcome as confidentiality permits.

VERIFY M3 — Confirm the responsible decision-maker, documentation method, access controls, record-retention arrangement and route when that person is conflicted. No fixed screening, response or resolution period and no standing investigation committee are asserted.

14. Requesting an Explanation from Authors

The corresponding author may be asked to coordinate a response, but all authors materially affected by a serious allegation should have a fair opportunity to provide relevant information. The request should identify the concern without inflammatory language, state what records or explanation would assist, and preserve confidentiality as far as possible.

A response may resolve an error, support further review, or reveal that correction is needed. Failure to reply does not by itself prove misconduct, but the journal may decide on the available evidence and may seek other contact details or institutional assistance where the concern is serious. No response deadline should be invented; any case-specific date communicated by the journal should be reasonable and recorded.

15. When an Institution May Be Contacted

The journal may contact an author’s institution or another competent body when credible concerns require access to records, witnesses or investigative authority the journal does not possess; when fabrication, falsification, unethical research or serious manipulation may affect more than one work; when the explanation is absent or inadequate and substantial concerns remain; or when the safety or reliability of the published record may be at risk.

Before referral, the journal should identify the appropriate research-integrity or governance contact, share only relevant and supportable information, describe allegations as allegations, and consider informing affected authors unless doing so would compromise a legitimate investigation or create another serious risk. The institution may be asked to investigate and report findings relevant to the publication record. The journal should not predetermine the institution’s conclusion or promise that it will act.

VERIFY M4 — Confirm who may authorise institutional contact, the publisher’s role, the approved communication channel and any legal/data-protection review required. No named institutional partner, regulator, cooperation agreement or guaranteed institutional response has been verified.

16. Editorial Decisions, Corrections and Retractions

For a submitted manuscript, supported concerns may lead to additional review, rejection or another proportionate editorial decision. For a published article, the response must focus on the reliability and transparency of the record. A correction may address a limited error that does not invalidate the main conclusions. A retraction may be necessary when findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, plagiarism, redundant publication or another ground set out in the journal’s Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

An expression of concern may be used when serious, credible doubt remains but evidence is inconclusive or an investigation is pending. It is not a finding of misconduct. Editorial action need not always wait for an institutional finding when the journal has sufficient evidence about the reliability of its record; equally, an institutional finding should be evaluated for its effect on the article. Notices should link to the original article, preserve the DOI and history, identify the reason without defamatory speculation, and update metadata as the applicable policy provides.

VERIFY M5 — Confirm final editorial authority, the route for an unconflicted decision, responsibility for notices and metadata, and any actual appeal route. Do not promise a particular sanction, notice or timeframe before the evidence is assessed.

Read this policy with the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Complaints and Appeals Policy, Plagiarism Policy, Authorship and Contributorship Policy and Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Supporting Guidance

The journal-specific basis is its published ethics statement and related policies. The following guidance informs the general framework; it does not prove that the journal has unverified investigative systems, appointments or institutional agreements.