Editorial Policies And Publication Ethics

1. Allegation of Research Misconduct

1.1 Policy Statement

JAM-EKIS is committed to academic integrity, transparency, and accountability. Allegations of research misconduct arising before, during, or after publication are assessed fairly, objectively, and confidentially in accordance with guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal does not tolerate practices that compromise the scholarly record.

1.2 Types of Research Misconduct

Plagiarism

Unattributed use of another person’s ideas, words, data, or intellectual contributions.

Data fabrication

Inventing research data, survey responses, observations, or results.

Data falsification

Manipulating or selectively omitting data, procedures, or analyses so that research is misrepresented.

Duplicate or redundant publication

Publishing or submitting substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure and justification.

Authorship misconduct

Including nonqualifying authors, excluding legitimate contributors, or changing authorship without appropriate authorization.

Citation manipulation

Adding irrelevant references primarily to inflate citation metrics.

Peer-review manipulation

Using fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviews, or improper influence.

Research ethics violations

Breaching participant protections, confidentiality, ethical approvals, or data permissions.

Misuse of artificial intelligence

Using AI to fabricate findings or references, or concealing uses that the journal requires authors to disclose.

1.3 Reporting Allegations

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and other stakeholders may report concerns through the journal’s official contact channels to the Editor-in-Chief. Reports should identify the article or manuscript, describe the concern, provide available supporting evidence, and include contact details where possible. Credible anonymous reports may also be assessed. The identity of a complainant will be protected to the extent practicable.

1.4 Investigation Procedure

  1. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the credibility, relevance, and seriousness of the allegation.
  2. The editorial team performs a preliminary evidence review and identifies potential conflicts of interest.
  3. Relevant authors or parties are invited to respond and provide supporting documentation.
  4. Where appropriate, independent experts, the publisher, or the authors’ institution may be consulted.
  5. The editor determines publication-related action based on available evidence and COPE guidance.
  6. The decision is documented and communicated to relevant parties, subject to confidentiality and legal requirements.

1.5 Possible Actions

  • Request clarification, supporting evidence, or manuscript revision.
  • Reject a manuscript still under consideration.
  • Publish a correction or an Expression of Concern.
  • Retract an article when warranted.
  • Refer matters requiring formal institutional investigation to the relevant institution or authority.

1.6 Fairness and Accountability

Individuals accused of misconduct should have a reasonable opportunity to respond. Allegations do not constitute proof. Research institutions may investigate research conduct, while the journal remains responsible for the integrity and status of its publications. Allegations against editorial board members will be handled by an independent editor or other unconflicted party.

2. Conflict of Interest Policy

2.1 Policy Statement

JAM-EKIS requires transparency and impartiality in research, peer review, and editorial decisions. A conflict of interest exists where personal, financial, professional, academic, or institutional interests may influence, or reasonably appear to influence, judgment. The existence of a conflict is not necessarily misconduct; nondisclosure or improper management can, however, undermine trust.

2.2 Types of Interests

  • Financial: grants, sponsorships, employment, stock ownership, consulting, or honoraria.
  • Personal: family relationships, friendships, or other close associations.
  • Professional: employment ties, collaborations, business partnerships, or competition.
  • Academic: supervisory relationships, intellectual rivalry, or competing research interests.
  • Institutional: ties to organizations that might benefit from research outcomes or decisions.

2.3 Authors’ Responsibilities

All authors must disclose relevant financial and nonfinancial interests during submission. Sources of funding and the funder’s role in research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions should be stated separately. Where no conflicts exist, authors should include the statement:

“The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.”

Where a conflict exists, authors must identify its nature and relevant parties clearly.

2.4 Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers must disclose possible conflicts before accepting assignments and decline or withdraw where impartiality may be compromised. Information from unpublished manuscripts must not be used for personal, professional, or financial gain.

2.5 Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts presenting actual or perceived conflicts, including submissions by close collaborators, family members, or themselves. Such submissions must be managed by independent editors and undergo the regular peer-review process without preferential treatment.

2.6 Management and Editorial Independence

JAM-EKIS may seek clarification, change reviewers or handling editors, commission independent assessment, update disclosures, or issue post-publication notices where necessary. Acceptance and rejection decisions must rest on research quality, relevance, rigor, and ethics—not personal, commercial, or institutional pressure.

3. Post-Publication Discussion Policy

3.1 Policy Statement

JAM-EKIS supports continuing scholarly evaluation after publication. Constructive, evidence-based discussion can clarify interpretations, improve research, identify errors, and strengthen the scientific record in accounting, management, Islamic economics, and related disciplines.

3.2 Forms of Discussion

  • Letters to the Editor addressing a published article.
  • Scientific commentaries discussing methods, findings, or interpretation.
  • Author responses to substantive questions or criticism.
  • Scholarly correspondence submitted to the editorial office.
  • Credible post-publication assessments, including concerns raised on external scholarly platforms.

3.3 Standards of Conduct

Contributions must be scientifically reasoned, supported by evidence when relevant, professional in tone, and respectful of other participants. Contributors must disclose material conflicts of interest. Personal attacks, harassment, threats, discriminatory language, or unsubstantiated allegations are unacceptable. Reasoned academic disagreement is welcomed.

3.4 Submission and Editorial Assessment

Comments should be sent through the journal’s official contact channels and identify the article, the correspondent and affiliation, the specific issue, relevant supporting references or evidence, and any conflicts of interest. Editors evaluate relevance, accuracy, ethics, and suitability for publication.

3.5 Author Response

Where a substantial scholarly issue is raised, editors may invite the original authors to respond. Responses should address the concern with appropriate evidence. The journal may publish both commentary and response when relevant and feasible.

3.6 Outcomes and Accessibility

Post-publication discussion may result in clarification, a published exchange, a correction, further investigation, an Expression of Concern, or retraction where justified. Not every disagreement warrants an editorial notice. Material discussions and notices may be linked to the original article to preserve a transparent scholarly record.

4. Correction and Retraction Policy

4.1 Policy Statement

JAM-EKIS aims to maintain the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of its published record. When serious problems or errors emerge after publication, the journal may issue a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction in accordance with relevant COPE guidance. These mechanisms correct the literature rather than punish authors.

4.2 Corrections

A correction is appropriate when an error needs to be rectified but the article’s overall findings and conclusions remain reliable. Examples include substantive mistakes in figures, tables, statistics, author or affiliation details, references, funding statements, or conflict-of-interest disclosures. The published correction must identify the original article, explain the issue, state the correction, and link to the article.

4.3 Retractions

Retraction may be warranted where findings are unreliable or publication integrity has been seriously compromised, including fabrication or falsification, serious plagiarism, unjustified duplicate publication, fundamental methodological or analytical errors, serious research-ethics violations, manipulated peer review, or other grave publication-integrity breaches. Retraction can be appropriate for honest error as well as misconduct.

4.4 Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published where substantial concerns exist but available evidence is inconclusive, an inquiry is ongoing, or an institutional decision is pending. It alerts readers to unresolved questions without itself determining misconduct.

4.5 Editorial Procedure

  1. Receive a concern from an author, reader, editor, institution, or other party.
  2. Assess the nature of the problem and available evidence.
  3. Seek author clarification and supporting material where practicable.
  4. Consult independent experts or relevant institutions if required.
  5. Reach an evidence-based editorial decision.
  6. Publish and link the appropriate notice and update the article record.

4.6 Retraction Notices and Article Record

A retraction notice should be readily accessible, clearly identify the article, explain the reason in factual language, identify who is retracting it where appropriate, and link to the article. The original work will generally remain in the journal archive, clearly marked “RETRACTED,” with its citation information and DOI retained. Full removal is reserved for exceptional legal, privacy, safety, or comparable compelling circumstances.

4.7 Authors’ Rights and Editorial Authority

Authors will normally be invited to respond. However, unanimous author agreement is not required when sufficient evidence supports retraction. Final decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized unconflicted editor, with the goal of maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.