Dealing of Misconduct

Dealing of Misconduct

Investigation on the dealing of misconduct and the decision for retraction of an article published in JAEDS rests on the Chief Editor.

The Chief-Editor may consider retracting a publication due to the following criteria

  1. There is clear evidence that the findings constitutes plagiarism, unreliable, either because of a major error [e.g., miscalculation or experimental error], or because of fabrication [e.g., of data] or falsification [e.g., image manipulation].
  2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification [i.e., cases of redundant publication]. It contains material or data without authorisation for use
  3. Copyright has been infringed, or there is some other legal severe issue [e.g. libel, privacy]. It reports unethical research. It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process
  4. The author[s] failed to disclose a major conflict of interest that, in the editor's view, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction should

  1. Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible [i.e., in all online versions]
  2. Clearly identify the retracted article [e.g., by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article]
  3. Be clearly identified as a retraction [i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comment]
  4. Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects
  5. Be freely available to all readers [i.e., not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers]
  6. State who is retracting the article
  7. State the reason[s] for retraction
  8. Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

 Retractions are not usually appropriate if

  1. The authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
  2. The main findings of the work are still reliable, and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns
  3. An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation
  4. Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor's view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.