Skip to main content

Misconduct Investigations

This page says what happens when someone alleges that a manuscript submitted to Peer Academics, or an article it has published, involves research or publication misconduct. What counts as misconduct is listed in Publication Ethics. The procedure applies to allegations against authors, reviewers, and editors alike, and is written in line with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); Peer Academics is not a member of COPE.

Two principles govern everything that follows. The journal decides on evidence, not on suspicion or reputation. And the journal is competent to decide what happens to a manuscript or an article, not to investigate what a researcher did in a laboratory, an archive, or a field site — that is the institution's responsibility.

Raising an allegation

Send the allegation to [email protected]. Identify the manuscript or article, say precisely what you allege, and attach the evidence: the passages and the source they are said to come from, the images and what is wrong with them, the earlier publication and the overlapping text, the data and the inconsistency. Say whether you have a conflict of interest with the authors and whether you have raised the matter elsewhere.

Anonymous and pseudonymous allegations are accepted and assessed on their evidence alone. The journal does not act on an unsupported assertion, on an automated similarity score without a human reading of the matches, or on the output of a tool claiming to detect fabricated text. Your identity is not disclosed to the authors unless you agree or the law requires it; the journal cannot promise anonymity against a court order, and says so rather than implying otherwise.

How an allegation is handled

  1. Acknowledgment and assignment. Receipt is acknowledged normally within five working days, and the matter is assigned to an editor with no involvement in the manuscript and no conflict with the parties. An allegation against an editor is handled by the Editor-in-Chief; one against the Editor-in-Chief, by an independent person designated by the Publisher.
  2. Preliminary assessment. The editor establishes whether, if the evidence were accepted, there would be a case to answer; allegations that do not survive this stage are closed and the person who raised the matter is told why. A manuscript under review is paused and reviewers are stood down without being told why; a published article remains available unless the evidence warrants an expression of concern.
  3. The author's right to reply. If there is a case to answer, the corresponding author is told what is alleged, is shown the evidence, and is given normally four weeks to respond on behalf of all authors. You may submit any evidence you wish — data, correspondence, drafts, approvals — and may ask for more time before the deadline. The journal reaches no finding against you without putting the allegation to you first, and does not treat a request for time as an admission.
  4. Assessment of the response. The editor weighs the response against the evidence and may consult an independent specialist, statistician, or image analyst under confidentiality.
  5. Referral to the institution. Where the question is one of research conduct rather than publication — whether data were fabricated, whether approvals existed, whether the work was done as described — the journal refers the matter to the authors' institution or national research integrity body, sets out the evidence, asks to be informed of the finding by an expected date, and follows it up. If the institution does not respond, does not investigate, or will not disclose its finding, the journal decides on the evidence available to it and may publish an expression of concern stating that it referred the matter and received no conclusion.
  6. Decision. The Editor-in-Chief decides on the evidence and the response, records the reasons, and notifies the authors and, in general terms, the person who raised the concern. Where a published article is affected, a notice is published under Corrections and Retractions.

Confidentiality

An inquiry is confidential while it is open: the journal does not name the parties publicly, does not discuss the case with anyone who does not need to know, and does not confirm to a third party that an inquiry exists. Authors are asked to observe the same restraint. Confidentiality does not prevent the journal from telling an institution, a funder, or another journal what is needed to have the matter properly examined. Personal data in a case file are processed under Romanian law and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR); see the Privacy Statement.

Possible outcomes

  • No case established. The matter is closed, the manuscript resumes review with no adverse record, and the authors are told in writing that the allegation was not upheld.
  • An honest error. The manuscript is corrected before publication, or a correction notice is published.
  • The manuscript is declined, or an acceptance is withdrawn before publication.
  • The article is retracted, or an expression of concern is published pending an institutional finding.
  • Referral. The authors' institution, funder, or another journal is informed, with the evidence.
  • A stated period during which submissions from the authors concerned are not considered.
  • Action against a reviewer or editor — removal from the reviewer pool, or ending an appointment under the terms in Editorial Board.

Sanctions are decided by the Editor-in-Chief, are proportionate to what was established rather than to what was alleged, and fall on the people responsible: a co-author shown to have had no part in what happened is not sanctioned for it, and early, honest disclosure is taken into account. While the Editorial Board is being assembled, the decisions described on this page as the Editor-in-Chief's are taken by the acting editorial management appointed by the Publisher, under the same rules; see Editorial Board.

Appealing a finding

You may appeal a misconduct finding once, in writing to [email protected], normally within four weeks of being notified. Say what evidence was misread or what new evidence you have; an appeal that repeats the original response is closed. It is considered by someone who took no part in the decision — where the decision was the Editor-in-Chief's, by a person designated by the Publisher — under Complaints and Appeals. An appeal does not delay a notice where the evidence is already clear; if it succeeds after publication, a further notice reverses the first.

Case files — the evidence, the correspondence, and the decision — are retained whatever the outcome, for the periods set out in the Privacy Statement, so that a later allegation can be seen in context.