Procedure for Handling Allegations of Academic Misconduct and Breaches of Publication Ethics

General Principles

The Editorial Board of the journal Coordinates of Public Administration ensures a structured, impartial, and fully documented process for handling all allegations of academic misconduct and breaches of publication ethics at any stage of the editorial and publication process.

This procedure is grounded in the principles of due process, evidence-based assessment, confidentiality, fairness, editorial independence, respect for the rights of all parties, and proportionality of editorial actions.

Allegations may concern, but are not limited to: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, redundant or duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship attribution, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of the peer-review process, inaccurate or fabricated references, copyright infringement, misuse of artificial intelligence, or any other practice that may compromise the integrity of the scholarly record.

Submission of Allegations

Allegations must be submitted to the Editorial Office in written or electronic form and should include:

– the full name and contact details of the complainant (unless anonymity is justified);

– a clear and specific description of the alleged misconduct;

– identification of the manuscript or published article concerned;

– references to the relevant material;

– supporting evidence (e.g., text comparisons, sources, documents, links, or analytical reports).

Anonymous submissions may be considered only if they provide sufficiently detailed and verifiable evidence.

Preliminary Assessment

Upon receipt, the allegation is formally registered and subjected to an initial assessment to determine:

– whether the matter falls within the journal’s remit;

– whether sufficient information has been provided to enable further evaluation;

– whether the allegation is manifestly unfounded, malicious, or constitutes an abuse of the complaint mechanism.

Where necessary, the Editorial Board may request additional information. Submissions lacking sufficient grounds may be dismissed at this stage, with appropriate notification provided.

Formal Investigation

If the preliminary assessment establishes reasonable grounds, a formal investigation is initiated. This may include:

– detailed examination of the manuscript or published article;

– similarity checks and verification of citation integrity;

– assessment of underlying or supporting data;

– validation of references, DOIs, and bibliographic records;

– consultation with independent experts or additional reviewers;

– solicitation of written explanations from the author(s).

Authors are afforded the opportunity to respond, submit clarifications, and provide supporting documentation. Editorial decisions are not based solely on unverified claims or assumptions.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All materials related to the allegation, including correspondence, evidence, and personal data, are treated as strictly confidential.

Individuals with an actual or potential conflict of interest must not participate in the investigation. In such cases, an alternative editor or independent expert is appointed to ensure objectivity.

Editorial Determinations

Following the investigation, the Editorial Board may take one or more of the following actions:

– dismiss the allegation as unsubstantiated;

– request revision of the manuscript;

– require correction of errors, references, data, or interpretations;

– reject the manuscript;

– publish a correction or clarification;

– issue an editorial Expression of Concern;

– retract the published article;

– notify the author’s institution or other relevant bodies in cases of serious misconduct.

All actions are proportionate to the nature, severity, and impact of the confirmed breach on the integrity of the scholarly record.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Where identified errors do not materially affect the results or conclusions, the Editorial Board may issue a correction or clarification.

Where misconduct or error significantly undermines the validity or reliability of the publication – such as in cases of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, or peer-review manipulation – the article may be retracted.

Retraction serves to correct the scholarly record and preserve research integrity, rather than to impose sanctions on authors.

Appeals

Authors, complainants, or other interested parties may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision.

Appeals must present new evidence or substantive arguments not previously considered.

Appeals are reviewed by individuals not involved in the original decision-making process or by independent experts. Decisions reached at the appeal stage are final.

Timelines

The Editorial Board aims to ensure timely handling of allegations:

– preliminary assessment: within 10 working days;

– formal investigation: within 30 working days.

In complex cases, timelines may be extended, and all parties will be duly informed.

Final Provisions

The Editorial Board operates in accordance with internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and best editorial practices.

Submission of an allegation does not guarantee revision of an editorial decision but ensures that all claims are duly considered.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to revise and update this procedure in line with evolving international standards, recommendations in publication ethics, and applicable legislation.