For Editors

Handling Misconduct

SIARE (Society of Integrated Academic Research and Education) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, editorial integrity, and research compliance. Editors play a critical role in identifying, assessing, escalating, and resolving suspected misconduct at every stage of the publication lifecycle.

This page provides guidance for editors on how to handle concerns fairly, confidentially, and consistently, in coordination with SIARE’s broader ethics, compliance, and post-publication policy framework.

Applicable to editors, guest editors, handling editors, and editorial board members across SIARE proceedings

Early Detection

Identify concerns during submission, peer review, editorial assessment, or post-publication review.

Fair Investigation

Evaluate concerns objectively, proportionately, and confidentially.

Structured Response

Take actions supported by policy, documentation, and editorial oversight.

Scholarly Record Protection

Preserve integrity of the publication process and the published record.

1. Scope of Misconduct

Editors must remain alert to concerns that may affect the integrity, reliability, legality, or ethical standing of submitted or published work. Misconduct handling may apply before review, during peer review, during editorial decision-making, at production stage, or after publication.

  • Plagiarism, unattributed overlap, or duplicate publication
  • Fabrication, falsification, or selective misrepresentation of data
  • Authorship disputes, ghost authorship, honorary authorship, or contribution misrepresentation
  • Peer review manipulation or improper reviewer conduct
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Missing or inadequate ethics approval, informed consent, or permissions
  • Improper handling of human participant, clinical, or animal research
  • Misleading image manipulation, figure duplication, or visual data distortion
  • Metadata, identity, or funding disclosures that materially misrepresent the record

2. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring that concerns are handled consistently, fairly, and confidentially. The objective is to protect both the integrity of the publication process and the rights of all parties involved.

  • Act promptly when concerns arise
  • Review available evidence carefully and proportionately
  • Avoid assumptions before clarification
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the process
  • Document communications, evidence, and decisions
  • Escalate serious or complex cases where required

3. Initial Assessment

When a possible misconduct issue is identified, editors should first conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern is minor, technical, remediable, or serious enough to require formal investigation.

  • Review reports, files, similarity results, figures, or supporting evidence
  • Assess whether the issue may result from error, poor reporting, or misconduct
  • Check related submission history and available records
  • Consider whether the matter relates to authorship, consent, ethics approval, image integrity, or disclosure
  • Decide whether author clarification is required
Not all irregularities indicate misconduct. Editors should distinguish between correctable editorial issues, poor reporting, non-compliance, and serious integrity concerns.

4. Communication with Authors

Where clarification is needed, authors should be contacted in a neutral, professional, and evidence-based manner. Editors should avoid accusatory language before the facts are established.

  • Describe the concern clearly
  • Request explanation, raw files, approvals, consent documentation, or supporting material where appropriate
  • Provide reasonable response time
  • Retain all communication for the editorial record

5. Investigation Process

If concerns remain unresolved after clarification, editors may initiate a more formal review of the case. Depending on severity, this may involve consultation with editorial leadership, ethics oversight, or institutional authorities.

  • Request additional files, raw data, image originals, approvals, declarations, or permissions
  • Seek editorial board or ethics input where necessary
  • Verify whether the issue affects review, decision, publication suitability, or record integrity
  • Assess whether other manuscripts, reviewers, or publication records may be affected
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the process

6. Special Areas Requiring Editorial Attention

Certain categories of concern require particular care because they may involve subject-specific compliance obligations or documentary evidence.

  • Authorship and contribution concerns – verify authorship eligibility, author order changes, and contribution transparency
  • Human subjects and clinical research – check ethics approval, informed consent, privacy protection, and clinical reporting compliance
  • Animal research – review welfare approval, ethical oversight, and relevant reporting expectations
  • Image and figure integrity – assess possible duplication, splicing, distortion, or undisclosed manipulation
  • Disclosure-related concerns – review funding, competing interests, permissions, and data availability statements

7. Possible Editorial Actions

The action taken should be proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and stage of the concern.

  • Request revision, correction, or clarification
  • Return the submission for compliance correction
  • Pause editorial processing pending documentation or further assessment
  • Reject the manuscript
  • Reassign editor or reviewer if conflict exists
  • Escalate the case to the SIARE Editorial Board or ethics contact
  • Initiate post-publication correction, expression of concern, withdrawal, or retraction where relevant

8. Post-Publication Concerns

If a misconduct concern is identified after publication, editors must take timely action to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

  • Review the concern and supporting evidence
  • Seek clarification from authors where needed
  • Assess whether the issue affects accuracy, attribution, ethics, or interpretability
  • Issue correction, editorial note, or expression of concern where appropriate
  • Recommend withdrawal or retraction in serious cases
Post-publication actions should be handled in coordination with the Corrections & Retractions Policy and related post-publication procedures.

9. Confidentiality and Fairness

All allegations or suspicions must be handled with care. Editors should ensure that confidentiality is protected and that no party is unfairly prejudged before the matter is reviewed properly.

  • Limit discussion to authorized editorial participants
  • Avoid unnecessary disclosure before decision
  • Ensure balanced, evidence-based, and proportionate handling
  • Protect both scholarly integrity and procedural fairness

10. Conflict of Interest in Misconduct Handling

Editors must not handle a case where they have a real or perceived conflict of interest. In such circumstances, responsibility should be transferred to another qualified editor or editorial authority.

11. Documentation and Record Keeping

Editors should maintain a clear internal record of concerns raised, communications sent, responses received, evidence reviewed, and actions taken. Proper documentation supports transparency, consistency, accountability, and defensible editorial decision-making.

12. Proceeding-Specific Ethics Pages

Each SIARE proceeding may also maintain a dedicated Publication Ethics & Integrity page with additional subject-specific or title-specific requirements. Editors should consult both the global ethics framework and the relevant proceeding-level page where such requirements may affect case handling.

13. Related Policies

Editors should read this page together with relevant SIARE policies, including:

Contact

For misconduct reporting, ethics escalation, or editorial guidance, please contact:

Email [email protected]
Email [email protected]
Email [email protected]