A concern is assessed, not assumed. SJS examines every credible allegation fairly, confidentially, and without prejudgement, follows the applicable COPE flowchart, and gives the people concerned the opportunity to respond before any finding is recorded. A concern does not by itself establish misconduct.
What the journal treats as misconduct
| Category | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Fabrication and falsification | Inventing or altering data, operative findings, imaging, measurements, outcomes, or follow-up; reporting patients who were not treated or procedures that were not performed; selectively omitting cases or complications so that a result appears better than it was. |
| Plagiarism and text reuse | Using another person’s words, data, figures, operative illustrations, or argument without attribution, including self-plagiarism, undisclosed translation, and undisclosed reuse. Screening and classification are set out in the Similarity and Plagiarism Policy. |
| Duplicate and redundant publication | Publishing the same series, or a substantially overlapping cohort and analysis, more than once; simultaneous submission elsewhere; dividing one case series into several thin reports. |
| Image manipulation | Adjusting, splicing, or enhancing clinical photographs, radiographs, endoscopic or histological images so that features are created, removed, or obscured. Adjustments must apply to the whole image and be described; original files are retained and supplied on request. |
| Authorship violations | Gift, guest, and ghost authorship, and the omission of a qualifying contributor. See Authorship. |
| Undisclosed competing interests | Concealing a financial or non-financial interest a reader would want to know about, including device or implant supply and clinical dual roles. See Conflict of Interest. |
| Citation and peer-review manipulation | Citations added without scholarly justification, coercive citation by a reviewer or editor, fabricated reviewer identities or contact details, and reviews written by the authors or their associates. |
| Breaches of research ethics | Absent, falsified, or misrepresented ethics approval; research or publication without the consent required; publishing identifying details of a patient without authorisation; exposing participants to avoidable harm. |
| Brokered or purchased manuscripts | Manuscripts produced or sold by a third party, indicated by data that cannot be produced, authors unable to describe their own operative series, unexplained changes of authorship, or non-institutional contact details. |
Who may raise a concern, and how
Anyone may raise a concern — a reader, a reviewer, an editor, a patient or their representative, an institution, or an author about their own work. Send it to sriwijayajournalsurgery@gmail.com with the article title and DOI, the specific passages, figures, or claims concerned, and whatever evidence supports it.
A concern is examined however long after publication it is raised, and whether or not the person raising it gives their name. An anonymous concern is assessed on its evidence; anonymity is not a reason to take no action. The journal acknowledges receipt and records the concern in the article file.
How a concern is handled
- Preliminary assessment. An editor with no interest in the matter assesses whether the evidence raises a credible question. Where it does not, the person raising it is told so, with reasons.
- Investigation. The editor follows the applicable COPE flowchart. The journal may request the underlying data, operative records, imaging, histology reports, consent documentation, or ethics approval; ask the corresponding author for a written explanation on behalf of all authors; consult an independent specialist; and re-run similarity screening.
- Right of reply. The authors are told what is alleged and given a reasonable period to respond before any finding is recorded, and their response is considered on its merits.
- Institutional referral. Where the evidence suggests serious misconduct, the journal contacts the authors’ institution, which is the body competent to investigate its own researchers. The journal does not conduct an employment investigation and does not pronounce on matters that belong to the institution or to a professional regulator.
- Decision and record. The editor records the finding, the reasons, and the action taken. The outcome is communicated in writing to the authors and, so far as confidentiality allows, to the person who raised the concern.
Where patient confidentiality limits what authors may supply, they are asked to demonstrate the existence and provenance of the material in a way their consent and ethics approval permit. Inability to release identifiable records is assessed in that light and is not treated by itself as evidence of fabrication.
Protections during an investigation
- The matter is kept confidential while it is examined, and details are shared only with those who need them to assess it.
- The person raising the concern is not identified to the authors without their consent.
- No finding is recorded and no public notice is issued until the authors have had the opportunity to respond.
- A concern about an editor, a board member, or the publisher is handled by someone who is not its subject; where necessary the publisher appoints an independent assessor. See Publisher and Editorial Governance.
- Raising a concern in good faith does not prejudice that person’s standing with the journal, whether as author or as reviewer.
Possible outcomes
The response is proportionate to the evidence and to the stage reached. An honest error is corrected; deliberate misconduct is not treated as an error. Depending on the finding, the journal may:
- take no further action, and say so;
- require revision, additional disclosure, or additional documentation before a manuscript proceeds;
- decline the manuscript;
- publish a correction, an expression of concern while an institutional investigation is unresolved, or a retraction — the mechanisms and the content of each notice are set out in Corrections, Retractions and Article Updates;
- notify the authors’ institution, the funder, and where appropriate the ethics committee;
- decline future submissions from the responsible parties for a stated period;
- remove a reviewer from the panel, or a member from the editorial board.
Appeals
An author who considers a finding wrong may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, setting out the grounds. The appeal is referred to an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Where the appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to the publisher, who appoints an independent assessor. The general procedure is set out in Complaints and Appeals; a complainant who remains unsatisfied after the journal’s process is exhausted may approach COPE.
Records
The concern, the evidence, the authors’ response, the finding, and the action taken are retained in the article file and preserved with the journal’s editorial records. They are available, under Editor credentials, to accreditation assessors and to any properly constituted investigation.
Standards followed
This policy follows the COPE Core Practices and the COPE flowcharts for suspected misconduct, the ICMJE Recommendations, and the requirements of Indonesian national journal accreditation.
Read together with Publication Ethics, Similarity and Plagiarism Policy, Authorship, Conflict of Interest and Corrections, Retractions and Article Updates. This policy is reviewed at least once a year.