Good Governance (GG) is committed to maintaining research integrity, academic honesty, and ethical standards in scholarly publishing. The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and handles them fairly, objectively, and transparently. This policy follows the principles outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, particularly the requirement that journals establish clear procedures for handling allegations of misconduct before and after publication.

 

Research or publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to, fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship practices, manipulation of the peer review process, undisclosed competing interests, and other practices that compromise the integrity or reliability of scholarly work. GG assesses suspected misconduct in accordance with the relevant principles and procedures described in COPE's guidance on allegations of misconduct.

An allegation is not considered proof of misconduct. The editorial team will assess the available evidence, consider the explanations provided by the parties involved, and determine the appropriate next steps before reaching an editorial decision. This approach is consistent with COPE's case-specific procedures for handling suspected misconduct, including its flowchart for suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript.

 

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, and other parties may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the GG editorial office. Reports should include a clear description of the concern and, where available, supporting evidence such as relevant publications, data, correspondence, or other documentation. GG takes allegations seriously regardless of how they are brought to the journal's attention, consistent with the COPE Core Practices on allegations of misconduct.

The journal will handle reports confidentially to the extent reasonably possible while allowing an appropriate assessment of the allegation. The identity of a complainant or whistleblower will not be disclosed unnecessarily. Anonymous reports may also be considered when they contain sufficient information or evidence to enable a meaningful assessment. These procedures reflect COPE's recommendation that journals establish processes for handling allegations, including those raised by whistleblowers, as described in the COPE Core Practices.

 

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and whether sufficient information is available to proceed. The editorial team may request additional evidence, consult an independent expert, or seek clarification from the relevant parties. In cases involving suspected fabricated data, the journal may follow the steps outlined in the COPE flowchart for fabricated data in a submitted manuscript.

The person or persons concerned will normally be informed of the allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse decision is made. The journal will avoid premature conclusions and will assess explanations and evidence impartially. Where the matter requires formal institutional investigation, GG may refer the concern to the authors' institution or another appropriate body, consistent with the procedures described in COPE's guidance on handling allegations of misconduct.

 

When an allegation involves matters that require institutional investigation, such as suspected data fabrication, falsification, or serious research ethics violations, GG may contact the relevant author's institution or other appropriate organization. The journal will provide relevant information necessary to explain the concern while respecting confidentiality and applicable requirements. This approach is consistent with COPE's guidance for journals when institutions are contacted about research or publication integrity concerns.

GG recognizes that the journal's editorial investigation and an institution's formal research misconduct investigation serve different purposes. The journal may make editorial decisions based on the evidence available to it, while institutional findings may inform further action. The journal will document relevant communications and, where appropriate, follow up on unresolved concerns in accordance with COPE's guidance on allegations of misconduct.

 

Depending on the nature, seriousness, and findings of the assessment, GG may take one or more of the following actions: request clarification or supporting evidence; require correction or revision of a manuscript; reject a submission; suspend editorial processing while further information is obtained; notify an appropriate institution or authority; or take suitable post-publication action if the article has already been published. The action taken will be proportionate to the evidence and the seriousness of the concern, following the relevant procedures in COPE's misconduct guidance.

If misconduct is established after publication, GG may publish a correction, an editorial notice, or a retraction, depending on the circumstances and the effect of the misconduct on the reliability of the published work. Such decisions will be handled in accordance with the journal's correction and retraction policies and the principles set out in the COPE Core Practices on post-publication discussions and corrections.

 

GG will handle allegations in good faith and will not treat an allegation alone as proof of wrongdoing. Parties involved in an investigation should be treated fairly, and the journal will seek to prevent unnecessary disclosure of confidential information. Deliberately fabricated or malicious allegations may be considered separately if supported by evidence. The journal's approach is guided by the fairness, accountability, and confidentiality principles reflected in the COPE Core Practices.

 

All allegations, supporting evidence, communications, and editorial decisions will be handled confidentially and retained as appropriate for the management of the case. Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations who need it for a legitimate assessment or investigation, subject to applicable legal and institutional requirements. GG will maintain appropriate records to support consistent decision-making and accountability, in line with the principles of COPE's guidance on allegations of misconduct.

 

Authors or other affected parties may submit a reasoned response or appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was based on incomplete evidence, a misunderstanding, or a procedural irregularity. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor who was not directly involved in the original decision, where practicable. The journal will communicate the outcome to the relevant parties and may seek additional information when necessary. This procedure is consistent with the principles of fair editorial governance described in the COPE Core Practices.

 

GG is committed to addressing suspected research and publication misconduct responsibly, protecting the integrity of the scholarly record, and maintaining public trust in academic publishing. The journal will review and update this policy when necessary to reflect developments in publication ethics and relevant guidance from COPE.