Commitment to Research Integrity

Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan Terapan (JIPT) is committed to preserving the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of the scientific record. The journal takes seriously credible allegations or indications of research misconduct relating to submitted manuscripts, published articles, authors, reviewers, editors, or other parties involved in the publication process.

Concerns may be identified before submission, during editorial screening, during peer review, after acceptance, or after publication. They may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, research collaborators, or other individuals who provide relevant information. All allegations will be assessed on their merits and supporting evidence rather than on the identity or status of the person reporting them.

Types of Misconduct

Research or publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication: inventing data, observations, experimental results, samples, or research records and presenting them as genuine.
• Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, images, or data, or omitting relevant information in a way that misrepresents the research record.
• Plagiarism: using another person's words, ideas, data, images, or work without appropriate acknowledgement or permission where required.
• Duplicate or redundant publication: publishing substantially overlapping material without appropriate disclosure, attribution, permission, or scholarly justification.
• Improper authorship: adding authors who did not make qualifying contributions, omitting eligible contributors, or misrepresenting contributions.
• Manipulation of peer review: fabricating reviewer identities, interfering improperly with reviewer reports, or attempting to subvert the independent review process.
• Citation manipulation: adding irrelevant citations or pressuring authors to cite particular work for reasons unrelated to scientific relevance.
• Undisclosed competing interests: concealing relevant interests that could materially affect interpretation or evaluation of the research.
• Ethical violations: conducting research without required approval, consent, or safeguards, or failing to comply with applicable animal-welfare or biosafety requirements.
• Misrepresentation of research: presenting invented experiments, altered findings, manipulated images, or unsupported conclusions as authentic scientific evidence.

Animal Research and Ethical Concerns

For studies involving animals, allegations may concern unnecessary pain or distress, inappropriate experimental procedures, inadequate animal care, failure to obtain required ethical approval, or inaccurate statements about animal use. Authors must comply with applicable institutional and legal requirements and provide relevant ethical documentation when required.

The journal may request information concerning animal housing, handling, treatment allocation, procedures, humane endpoints, sample collection, euthanasia where applicable, and measures taken to minimize pain or distress. The nature and extent of the information requested will depend on the study and the concern raised.

Reporting a Concern

Individuals who wish to report suspected misconduct should contact the editorial office through the official journal contact channels. Reports should include a clear description of the concern, identification of the manuscript or published article where possible, and supporting evidence such as relevant documents, data, images, references, or a description of the suspected irregularity.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. However, the journal may be unable to investigate allegations that lack adequate detail or supporting evidence.

Assessment and Investigation

The editorial team will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern is relevant, credible, and supported by sufficient information to justify further inquiry. The journal may request an explanation from the authors, examine submitted materials, seek independent expert advice, or consult relevant institutions or research ethics committees.

Where institutional investigation is appropriate, the journal may contact the institution responsible for the research and request information about the status or outcome of its inquiry. The journal's editorial assessment may proceed independently when necessary to protect the integrity of the published record.

All parties will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide relevant information when appropriate. The journal will handle allegations as confidentially as practicable, avoid premature conclusions, and take steps to prevent conflicts of interest from affecting the assessment.

Possible Editorial Actions

Depending on the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and its effect on the manuscript or published findings, the journal may:

• Request clarification, original data, research records, or additional documentation.
• Require correction or clarification of a manuscript before further consideration.
• Pause the editorial process while a significant concern is assessed.
• Reject a manuscript when serious ethical or scientific concerns remain unresolved.
• Publish a correction or clarification when the published record requires amendment.
• Publish an expression of concern when a significant issue remains under investigation and readers need to be informed.
• Retract an article when the findings are unreliable or serious misconduct has compromised the integrity of the publication.
• Notify relevant institutions or other responsible bodies when appropriate and lawful.

Fairness and Confidentiality

An allegation alone does not establish misconduct. Editorial action must be proportionate to the evidence and the potential effect on the reliability of the research. The journal will seek to protect the confidentiality and legitimate interests of the parties involved while fulfilling its responsibility to readers and the scientific community.

Where a concern cannot be resolved through the available evidence, the journal may explain the limitations of its assessment and consider whether further clarification or a public notice is necessary. The journal's objective is to correct or protect the scholarly record, not to impose punishment without an appropriate basis.