The Journal of Innovation Management (JIM) takes seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. As an international Journal, JIM acknowledges complexity in any attempt to adopt a singular, consistent, widely accepted, Definition of Misconduct. Misconduct in publishing can arise anywhere along the publication journey and involve suspicion, or allegations about authors, editors, reviewers.

 

Types of publication misconduct

JIM considers misconduct within the publication process to be a breach of ethics within the following classifications:

• authorship misconduct. Inappropriate attribution of authorship (such as guest, ghost or gift authorship), as well as fraudulent use of names or affiliations. Transparency about the contributions of all authors is required, with the provision of a CRediT Statement in the Title Page upon submission.
• plagiarism and copyright infringement. Plagiarism is when somebody presents the work of others (data, words, or theories) as if they were their own and without proper acknowledgement. As a component of the submission procedure, JIM requests authors to affirm that the work they are submitting is their own original creation, that they possess the rights to the work, and that they have acquired and are capable of providing all requisite permissions for reproducing any copyrighted materials not under their ownership.
• multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications. Significant duplication or repetition, meaning that the research is derived from the same dataset with indistinguishable results and/or evidence that authors have attempted to conceal this redundancy, such as altering the title or author sequence, or omitting references to prior publications.
• data falsification and fabrication, including deceptive manipulation of images. Falsifying findings or manipulating experimental resultsw, either by fabricating data or modifying the outcomes of experiments. Copying components within an image or employing identical images to represent distinct concepts.
• citation manipulation. When references do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article, and are included solely to increase citations.
• peer review misconduct. Exploiting the double-blind review process for improper purposes (see Reviewers and Misconduct below).
• non-disclosure of use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. JIM requires authors to disclose any use of artificial intelligence assisted technologies (in the Title Page and Main Body Manuscript documents of initial submissions), such as:
  • generative chatbots.
  • Large Language Models (LLMs).
  • AI media technologies.

 

In cases of alleged misconduct, or in cases when the integrity of the submitted or published work, JIM Editors should:

• Refer the matter to JIM's Editor-in-Chief;
• Editor-in-Chief takes guidance from COPE's 'Allegations of misconduct' resources;
• (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts); and in particular COPE's extensive list of flowcharts pertaining to 'Allegations of misconduct' - which include guidance around: author misconduct (e.g. ghost, guest, gift authorship in a submitted manuscript); peer review misconduct; whistleblowers; reviewer misconduct;
• once the relevant guidance has been followed, further action depends on the specific situation;
• consider informing appropriate organisations;
• consider publishing an expression of concern or consider a retraction of the article.

 

Should the need arise, JIM can look to COPE for advice, as COPE offers members the option to submit an anonymised suspected case of misconduct to the COPE Forum for discussion and advice. The advice produced as a result of this process is also use to inform JIM if and when cases of misconduct arise.

 

Editors and Misconduct

JIM adheres to COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors around JIM Editor duties: "Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers" [Clause 11.1]. "Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases" [Clause 11.2]. "Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty" [Clause 11.5]. Jim also refers to COPE's Ethics tookit for editors.

 

Misconduct involving editors can take various forms, from the management and involvement sides. JIM refers to COPE resources for guidance around: 

• How to handle suspected ethical problems and responding to whistleblowers;
• Editorial Misconduct; Editors found guilty of research misconduct;
• Sharing information among Editors-in-Chief regarding possible misconduct;
• Predatory publishing;
• Competing Interests (relates to editors, reviewers, and authors). 

 

Reviewers and Misconduct

Misconduct involving reviewers can take various forms, including:

• Peer Review - JIM is guided by COPE resources about Peer Review Manipulation, including: Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process; How to spot potential maniuplation in the peer review process;
• Competing Interests (relates to editors, reviewers, and authors).