Allegations of Misconduct Policy

Research and Publication Misconduct Allegations Policy

Geliotekhnika is committed to high standards of research integrity, publication ethics, accountability, procedural fairness, and transparency.

The journal recognizes its responsibility to respond appropriately to credible concerns relating to submitted or published work, peer review, authorship, editorial conduct, and other aspects of the publication process.

This policy establishes procedures for submitting, initially assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of research, publication, peer review, and editorial misconduct before and after publication.

All allegations are considered fairly, confidentially, and consistently without presuming that misconduct occurred before the available evidence has been assessed.

Definition of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct means intentional, knowing, reckless, or seriously negligent conduct that compromises the reliability, originality, legality, ethics, or transparency of scholarly work or the publication process.

An honest error, legitimate scientific disagreement, methodological limitation, or difference in interpretation does not automatically constitute misconduct. Such a matter may nevertheless require correction or other action where it affects the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Types of Misconduct

Misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following conduct.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s text, ideas, methods, data, images, results, computer code, models, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate attribution.

It may include direct copying, close paraphrasing without acknowledgment, translation plagiarism, appropriation of ideas or methods, unauthorized use of figures, tables, images, or code, inappropriate reuse of previously published text, and presentation of another person’s unpublished material as one’s own.

Properly attributed quotation, legitimate reuse permitted by a license, and limited repetition of standard methodological language do not automatically constitute plagiarism.

Fabrication

Fabrication is inventing data, observations, experiments, measurements, simulations, calculations, results, references, or other research information and presenting it as genuine.

Falsification

Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, methods, calculations, computer models, images, data, or processes, or selectively omitting material information, to create a misleading representation of the research.

Inappropriate Manipulation of Images, Figures, or Data

Misconduct may include:

  • altering an image or figure in a misleading manner;

  • removing, adding, moving, or concealing a relevant feature;

  • reusing an image or dataset without disclosure;

  • presenting duplicated data as independent results;

  • manipulating graphs, scales, axes, error ranges, or visualizations to misrepresent findings;

  • selective reporting that materially distorts the results.

Legitimate technical adjustments must be applied consistently and must not obscure or alter the meaning of relevant information.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Publishing or attempting to publish the same or substantially similar work, data, analysis, or conclusions more than once without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, and cross-reference constitutes duplicate or redundant publication.

Related manuscripts, conference materials, preprints, reports, theses, datasets, and previous publications must be disclosed transparently.

Simultaneous Submission

Authors must not submit the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.

Inappropriate Fragmentation of Research

Dividing one coherent study into several minimally distinct publications primarily to increase publication count is inappropriate where it results in substantial overlap, incomplete reporting, or misleading presentation.

Authorship and Contributorship Misconduct

Guest, gift, honorary, ghost, purchased, or coercive authorship; omission of a qualifying contributor; inclusion of a person without a qualifying contribution; unauthorized addition, removal, or reordering of authors; false contribution statements; and submission without the knowledge and approval of all authors may constitute misconduct.

Such matters are also considered under the journal’s Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

Undisclosed Competing Interests

Failure to disclose a financial, institutional, professional, academic, intellectual, or personal interest that affects, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, research, peer review, editorial assessment, or publication may constitute misconduct.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation may include:

  • requiring irrelevant references to increase citation counts;

  • coordinated citation exchanges;

  • excessive self-citation without scholarly justification;

  • adding sources that were not consulted;

  • using fabricated or unverifiable references;

  • pressuring authors to cite a particular researcher, journal, institution, or group for non-scientific reasons.

Peer Review Manipulation

Peer review manipulation may include providing false reviewer names or contacts, recommending an address controlled by an author, impersonating another researcher, creating false reviews, operating coordinated review rings, interfering with reviewer selection, attempting to identify, influence, intimidate, or retaliate against reviewers, unauthorized delegation of a review, and using confidential information for personal advantage.

Editorial Misconduct

Editorial misconduct may include decisions on non-scientific grounds, failure to disclose a competing interest, improper interference with peer review, disclosure of confidential information, use of unpublished material, discrimination, manipulation of citations or decisions, preferential treatment for editors, Board members, institutions, sponsors, or paying authors, and suppression of legitimate ethical concerns.

Ethical Violations in Research

Ethical misconduct may include:

  • conducting research without required institutional or ethics approval;

  • false or misleading information about ethics approval;

  • failure to obtain required informed consent;

  • breach of participant privacy or confidentiality;

  • unauthorized use of identifiable data;

  • failure to comply with applicable animal welfare requirements;

  • breach of legal, safety, environmental, institutional, or regulatory requirements;

  • misrepresentation of the ethical status of a study.

Misrepresentation of Data, Code, and Materials

False claims about availability of data, code, models, protocols, or materials; provision of incomplete, manipulated, or unrelated files; destruction or concealment of research records after concerns were raised; refusal without adequate explanation to meet a reasonable editorial request; and misrepresentation of legal, ethical, commercial, or confidentiality restrictions may constitute misconduct.

A legitimate inability to share data because of legal, ethical, privacy, commercial, security, or third-party restrictions is not misconduct where the limitation is accurately disclosed.

Misuse of Artificial Intelligence

Misconduct may include:

  • listing an AI tool as an author;

  • using AI-generated fabricated data, references, calculations, evidence, or quotations;

  • failing to verify AI-generated content;

  • using AI in a way that violates confidentiality or intellectual property;

  • concealing reportable AI use;

  • presenting AI-generated content as independently produced human scholarship where disclosure is required;

  • using AI to manipulate peer review or editorial communication.

Such cases are also considered under the journal’s Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence.

Other Misconduct

The journal may consider other conduct that materially compromises research reliability, peer review integrity, accuracy of the scholarly record, participant or animal welfare, confidentiality, copyright, intellectual property, editorial independence, or trust in the publication process.

Who May Report an Allegation

An allegation may be submitted by an author, co-author, reviewer, editor, Editorial Board member, reader, research participant, institution, ethics committee, research integrity office, funding organization, regulator, another journal or publisher, anonymous or identified whistleblower, or another person or organization with relevant information.

The journal assesses the substance and credibility of the information rather than the reporter’s status, position, institution, or identity.

Submitting an Allegation

Allegations must be submitted in writing to ftikans@uzsci.net.

The preferred subject line is:

Allegation of misconduct concerning [manuscript ID, article title, or DOI]

A report should include, where available:

  • the reporter’s name and contact details;

  • manuscript title and identification number;

  • article title, DOI, or publication details;

  • a clear description of the alleged misconduct;

  • the relevant text, data, figures, references, processes, or actions;

  • relevant dates;

  • names and roles of persons involved;

  • supporting documents, links, correspondence, or other evidence;

  • disclosure of any relevant competing interest;

  • information about whether the matter was reported elsewhere.

The reporter should distinguish verifiable facts from assumptions and interpretations and avoid defamatory, threatening, discriminatory, or unnecessarily personal language.

Anonymous Allegations

Anonymous allegations are considered where they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable information. The journal will not dismiss a concern solely because the reporter is anonymous.

Anonymity may limit the ability to seek clarification, verify evidence, assess interests, communicate an outcome, or conduct a complete investigation. An anonymous report with no identifiable issue or verifiable evidence may be closed without further action.

Good-Faith Reporting and Protection From Retaliation

The journal will not retaliate against a person who reports a concern honestly and in good faith. Such a report will not negatively affect a current or future manuscript, reviewer appointment, editorial communication, or legitimate academic relationship with the journal.

The journal will not allow editorial processes to be used to retaliate against a whistleblower, complainant, author, reviewer, or other participant.

This protection does not extend to deliberately false, fabricated, malicious, threatening, harassing, or discriminatory allegations.

Confidentiality

Allegations are handled with an appropriate degree of confidentiality. Information is disclosed only to persons who require it to assess, investigate, respond to, or resolve the concern.

The identity of a whistleblower or complainant is protected where reasonably possible. Complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where procedural fairness, an opportunity to respond, institutional investigation, a legal obligation, or protection of the scholarly record requires disclosure.

Sensitive personal information not necessary to resolve the matter will not be disclosed.

Competing Interests in Handling Allegations

A person must not assess or investigate an allegation where that person:

  • is the subject of the allegation;

  • participated in the disputed conduct;

  • has a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic competing interest;

  • made the editorial decision under investigation;

  • has another relationship that could compromise impartiality.

Where a conflict exists, the matter is assigned to an independent editor, Editorial Board member, Publisher representative with independent oversight, or external adviser.

Allegations Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

An allegation concerning the Editor-in-Chief must not be investigated or decided solely by the Editor-in-Chief. It may be referred to an independent senior Editorial Board member, the Publisher with independent oversight, a representative designated by the Founder, an external research integrity adviser, or another competent and independent person.

The Editor-in-Chief must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond but must not control the investigation or outcome.

Allegations Concerning the Publisher

An allegation concerning I-EDU GROUP LLC, its management, or a person acting on its behalf must be reviewed with independent oversight.

The matter may be assigned to an independent Editorial Board representative, a representative designated by the Founder, an external adviser, or another competent institutional authority.

The Publisher must not determine the outcome of an allegation concerning its own conduct without independent assessment.

Preliminary Assessment

The journal aims to acknowledge receipt of an allegation within five working days.

The preliminary assessment determines:

  • whether the allegation concerns the journal, a manuscript, or published content;

  • whether it falls within this policy;

  • whether sufficient information was provided;

  • whether the allegation is specific and potentially verifiable;

  • whether immediate action is required;

  • whether another policy applies;

  • whether a competing interest exists;

  • whether relevant records should be preserved;

  • whether the matter should be referred to an institution or competent authority.

The journal may request clarification or additional evidence. Vague suspicion, personal disagreement, or unsupported accusation alone is insufficient to initiate a full investigation.

Preservation of Records and Evidence

When a credible allegation is received, the journal may preserve:

  • original and revised manuscript files;

  • supplementary materials;

  • reviewer invitations and reports;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • authorship and ethics declarations;

  • competing interest statements;

  • metadata;

  • editorial system records and technical logs;

  • publication files.

The journal may ask authors, reviewers, or institutions to preserve original data and relevant documents. Preservation of evidence does not imply that misconduct was established.

Notification and Opportunity to Respond

Where an allegation proceeds beyond preliminary assessment, the person concerned is normally informed of the substantive concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The notification must:

  • describe the concern sufficiently clearly;

  • identify the relevant manuscript or publication;

  • request an explanation or evidence;

  • specify a reasonable response period;

  • avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential information;

  • avoid prejudging the outcome.

The journal may delay notification where immediate disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence, compromise an institutional investigation, or create another serious risk.

Editorial Assessment and External Investigation

The journal may conduct an editorial assessment to determine:

  • whether the publication process was compromised;

  • whether consideration of the manuscript may continue;

  • whether published content remains reliable;

  • whether a correction, Editorial Expression of Concern, or retraction may be required;

  • whether the matter should be referred to an institution.

The journal does not normally have authority to conduct a full institutional investigation, determine employment sanctions, or make legal findings.

Where formal investigation is required, the matter may be referred to the author’s or reviewer’s institution, a research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, regulator, or another competent authority.

Cooperation With Institutions

When contacting an institution, the journal may request:

  • acknowledgment of the referral;

  • confirmation that the matter will be assessed;

  • an expected timeframe;

  • notification of relevant findings;

  • information necessary to determine the reliability of the manuscript or publication.

The journal will not request confidential personnel information unrelated to the scholarly record. It may take its own editorial action during an institutional investigation where necessary to protect readers or the publication process.

Timelines

The journal aims to complete the initial assessment within 30 calendar days, where reasonably possible.

Cases involving several publications, institutions, technical analysis, international cooperation, or legal issues may require more time. Institutional investigations are outside the journal’s direct control and may take longer.

Where appropriate, parties are informed of significant delays and major procedural developments. Timeframes are operational targets rather than absolute guarantees.

Allegations Before Publication

Where a credible allegation concerns a submitted manuscript, the journal may:

  • pause peer review;

  • suspend an editorial decision;

  • delay acceptance or publication;

  • request explanations and evidence;

  • request original data, calculations, code, images, models, ethics records, or authorship documents;

  • replace an editor or reviewer;

  • obtain additional independent review;

  • refer the matter to an institution or competent authority.

A pause does not imply that misconduct was established. If the concern is resolved satisfactorily, consideration may continue. A manuscript that is unreliable, unethical, improperly submitted, or affected by serious misconduct may be rejected.

Allegations After Acceptance but Before Publication

If an allegation arises after acceptance but before publication, production is suspended while the matter is assessed.

Acceptance may be withdrawn where:

  • essential information was concealed;

  • the manuscript is found to be unreliable;

  • required ethics approval was absent or misrepresented;

  • authorship or peer review was manipulated;

  • the work substantially duplicates another publication;

  • another serious policy violation is confirmed.

Withdrawal of acceptance is documented in the journal’s internal records.

Allegations After Publication

Post-publication concerns are assessed regardless of the time elapsed since publication.

The journal may contact authors, request data or documents, obtain independent expert review, contact institutions, publish an editorial note, correction, Editorial Expression of Concern, or retraction, and update metadata and indexing records.

The action depends on the reliability of the publication, seriousness of the matter, available evidence, and outcome of any external investigation.

Corrections

A correction is published where an error or omission does not invalidate the principal findings, can be accurately corrected, does not require withdrawal of the full article, and is important for readers or the scholarly record.

A correction may be required for an honest error even where no misconduct occurred. It is clearly identified and electronically linked to the original article.

Editorial Expressions of Concern

An Editorial Expression of Concern may be published where:

  • credible concerns exist about a publication;

  • an investigation is incomplete;

  • an institutional response is significantly delayed;

  • evidence is inconclusive but readers should be alerted;

  • the journal cannot obtain information necessary for a final decision;

  • there is a serious dispute concerning the reliability or ethical status of the article.

The notice explains the reason for concern without unsupported allegations, is linked to the original article, and is updated or replaced by a correction or retraction when new information becomes available.

Retractions

An article may be retracted where:

  • findings or conclusions are unreliable;

  • fabricated or falsified data are present;

  • plagiarism materially affects the publication;

  • the article substantially duplicates earlier work without disclosure;

  • peer review or authorship was seriously manipulated;

  • the research was conducted or reported unethically;

  • publication occurred without required authorization or consent;

  • copyright or another serious right was infringed;

  • another serious breach invalidates confidence in the article.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and alert readers that the article should not be relied upon; it is not primarily a disciplinary punishment.

The retraction notice is freely accessible, clearly identifies the article, explains the reason and who is retracting it, and is electronically linked to the original. The original article normally remains accessible but is clearly marked as retracted.

Possible Outcomes

Following assessment, the journal may conclude that:

  • no further action is required;

  • the allegation is unsupported;

  • additional information is needed;

  • an honest error occurred;

  • a policy violation occurred without sufficient evidence of misconduct;

  • misconduct appears likely and institutional investigation is required;

  • misconduct was confirmed by a competent investigation;

  • the publication process was compromised;

  • the published record requires correction or retraction.

The journal distinguishes, as far as possible, among honest error, scientific disagreement, poor practice, negligence, reckless conduct, and deliberate misconduct.

Corrective and Protective Actions

Depending on the evidence and seriousness, the journal may:

  • request clarification or documents;

  • require correction of declarations or metadata;

  • pause or terminate peer review;

  • replace an editor or reviewer;

  • reject a manuscript;

  • withdraw acceptance;

  • publish a correction, editorial note, Editorial Expression of Concern, or retraction;

  • correct authorship or competing-interest information;

  • notify an institution, funder, ethics committee, or competent authority;

  • remove a fraudulent reviewer account;

  • restrict participation in editorial or peer review activities;

  • apply a proportionate temporary restriction on future submissions in serious or repeated cases;

  • review other work where there is justified concern that it may also be affected.

Any measure must be proportionate, documented, and based on evidence. It does not replace an institutional or legal determination where such determination is required.

Communication of Outcomes

Where appropriate, the journal may communicate the outcome to the reporter, respondent, authors, involved editors or reviewers, institutions, funding or regulatory bodies, and readers through a public notice.

Confidential personnel, legal, or institutional information will not be disclosed unnecessarily. The reporter may not receive all details because of confidentiality, privacy, or legal restrictions.

Unsupported or Malicious Allegations

An allegation is not considered malicious merely because it was not substantiated.

The journal may limit or terminate correspondence where an allegation is knowingly false, based on fabricated evidence, threatening, discriminatory, abusive, repeatedly submitted without new information, intended to harass a person, or intended to manipulate an editorial outcome.

Any credible research integrity concern contained within inappropriate communication will still be assessed on its merits.

Complaints and Appeals About the Process

A person who believes that an allegation was handled unfairly may submit a reasoned complaint under the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

The complaint must identify the disputed procedural action, alleged factual or procedural error, supporting evidence, and requested remedy.

Disagreement with the outcome alone is insufficient; a significant procedural, factual, or competing-interest concern must be identified.

Record-Keeping

The journal maintains confidential records of allegations, evidence, correspondence, preliminary assessments, persons involved in review, institutional referrals, outcomes and reasons, corrections, Editorial Expressions of Concern, retractions, dates, and procedural actions.

Records are retained in accordance with confidentiality, data protection, legal, and document-retention requirements. Anonymized information may be used to improve journal policies, editorial procedures, training, and research integrity practices.

External Standards

The misconduct-handling practices of Geliotekhnika are informed by:

  • COPE Core Practices;

  • relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance on suspected misconduct;

  • COPE guidance on responding to concerns about published research;

  • COPE guidance on cooperation between journals and research institutions;

  • COPE Retraction Guidelines;

  • COPE guidance on Editorial Expressions of Concern;

  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;

  • DOAJ Guide to Applying;

  • Scopus requirements for publication ethics and malpractice statements;

  • Web of Science criteria concerning editorial quality and research integrity;

  • the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;

  • the journal’s Authorship and Contributorship Policy;

  • the journal’s Conflicts of Interest Policy;

  • the journal’s Peer Review Policy;

  • the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy;

  • the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy;

  • applicable national legislation and internationally recognized standards of research integrity.

Policy Administration

This policy takes effect on the date of its publication on the journal’s official website and is reviewed periodically to maintain alignment with applicable ethical standards and the journal’s editorial practices.

Allegations, supporting evidence, procedural complaints, and questions concerning this policy should be submitted to ftikans@uzsci.net.

Relevant matters are considered in accordance with the journal’s applicable policies and current COPE guidance.

ISSN 0130-0997 (Print)
ISSN 2181-9963 (Online)