Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of Misconduct

1. Introduction

Andalasian Livestock (ALive) is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and reliability of the scholarly record in animal science and related disciplines. The journal recognizes that allegations of research or publication misconduct may arise at any stage of the editorial and publishing process, including before submission, during peer review, after acceptance, or following publication.

The journal takes all credible concerns seriously and seeks to address them fairly, consistently, confidentially, and without unnecessary delay. Its approach is informed by the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly the guidance concerning allegations of misconduct and cooperation between journals and research institutions.

An allegation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred. All individuals involved must be treated fairly, and editorial decisions must be based on an appropriate assessment of the available evidence.

2. Description

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for receiving, assessing, investigating, referring, and resolving allegations of research and publication misconduct associated with manuscripts submitted to or articles published in Andalasian Livestock.

It applies to authors, coauthors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and other individuals involved in the journal's publication processes.

Potential misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  1. Data fabrication: Inventing research data, observations, measurements, or experimental results.

  2. Data falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, datasets, or results in a manner that misrepresents the research.

  3. Plagiarism: Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

  4. Redundant or duplicate publication: Publishing or submitting substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure or justification.

  5. Authorship misconduct: Misrepresenting author contributions, including inappropriate guest, gift, or ghost authorship.

  6. Peer-review manipulation: Providing fraudulent reviewer identities, interfering with independent assessment, or improperly influencing editorial decisions.

  7. Image or figure manipulation: Altering images, figures, or other research evidence in ways that misrepresent the original findings.

  8. Undisclosed competing interests: Concealing relevant financial, personal, professional, or institutional interests that could influence the research or publication process.

  9. Ethical violations involving animals or human participants: Conducting or reporting research without required ethical approval, appropriate safeguards, or compliance with applicable standards.

  10. Misrepresentation of research methods or findings: Providing materially misleading descriptions of study design, sample selection, experimental procedures, statistical analysis, or results.

Other practices that compromise research integrity, editorial independence, or the reliability of the scholarly record may also fall within this policy.

3. Policy

3.1. Commitment to Addressing Allegations

Andalasian Livestock will consider credible allegations relating to submitted manuscripts and published articles, regardless of whether the concerns are raised before or after publication.

The journal will not dismiss a substantiated concern solely because a manuscript has been rejected, withdrawn, or already published.

The journal's response will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern and will follow relevant COPE guidance where applicable.

3.2. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, and members of the public may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the editorial office.

Reports should preferably include:

  • The title, authors, DOI, manuscript identification number, or other information identifying the work.

  • A clear description of the suspected misconduct.

  • Relevant supporting evidence, documents, or references.

  • Contact information for follow-up, where the complainant is willing to provide it.

Reporting channel: [INSERT VERIFIED EDITORIAL OR RESEARCH INTEGRITY EMAIL ADDRESS]

Reports may also be submitted through an appropriate official journal communication channel.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible evidence to permit an initial assessment.

The journal will not require a complainant to prove misconduct conclusively before raising a concern.

3.3. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and whether sufficient information is available for further consideration.

The initial assessment may involve:

  • Reviewing the manuscript, published article, and relevant editorial records.

  • Examining evidence of overlapping text, publications, figures, or datasets.

  • Requesting additional clarification or documentation.

  • Consulting an independent editor or relevant subject specialist where necessary.

  • Identifying any conflicts of interest that could compromise impartial handling.

Allegations that are clearly outside the journal's remit may be referred to an appropriate institution or authority.

3.4. Fairness and Opportunity to Respond

Individuals whose work or conduct is questioned will ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements and the circumstances of the case.

The journal will evaluate responses and supporting evidence impartially.

Editorial assessments must avoid premature conclusions, personal bias, and discriminatory treatment.

An editor with a relevant competing interest must not oversee the assessment or decision-making process for that case.

3.5. Confidentiality and Protection of Participants

The journal will handle allegations and related correspondence with appropriate confidentiality.

Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary to assess, investigate, or resolve the concern, or where disclosure is required by applicable law.

The identity of a complainant will be protected where reasonably possible, although absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

The journal will not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith. Deliberately false or malicious allegations may themselves warrant appropriate action.

3.6. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Andalasian Livestock recognizes the distinction between editorial responsibility and institutional responsibility.

The journal is responsible for evaluating the integrity of its editorial processes and published content. Research institutions and other competent bodies are generally better positioned to conduct formal investigations into the conduct of researchers, access original research records, and determine whether institutional research misconduct has occurred.

When appropriate, the journal may refer concerns to the relevant institution, employer, ethics committee, funding organization, or other competent authority.

The journal may provide relevant evidence and request the outcome of an institutional investigation, subject to confidentiality and applicable legal requirements.

Editorial action may be taken independently when sufficient evidence establishes that a publication requires correction or other action to protect the scholarly record.

3.7. Allegations Involving Animal Research

Because Andalasian Livestock publishes research concerning livestock, animal health, nutrition, physiology, production systems, and animal welfare, concerns involving the ethical treatment of research animals receive particular attention.

Where relevant, authors may be asked to provide:

  • Documentation of approval by an appropriate animal research ethics committee or equivalent authority.

  • Information about animal handling, housing, care, and experimental procedures.

  • Evidence of compliance with applicable animal welfare requirements.

  • Clarification of procedures intended to minimize unnecessary pain, distress, or harm.

Where serious animal welfare concerns cannot be adequately resolved through editorial assessment, the journal may seek advice from appropriate institutional or regulatory bodies.

An ethics approval statement alone does not prevent the journal from considering credible evidence of ethical misconduct.

3.8. Allegations Involving Editors or Reviewers

Allegations concerning editors, editorial board members, or peer reviewers will be handled with the same seriousness as allegations concerning authors.

Where an allegation involves the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility for managing the case should be assigned to an independent, unconflicted individual or appropriate publishing authority.

Potential reviewer or editor misconduct includes unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts, misuse of unpublished information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, biased editorial conduct, and manipulation of peer review.

Where concerns are substantiated, appropriate measures may include removal from the review or editorial process, reassignment of the manuscript, referral to an institution, or other proportionate action.

3.9. Allegations Before Publication

When a credible concern arises during manuscript assessment or peer review, the journal may temporarily suspend the editorial decision while relevant evidence is examined.

Possible outcomes include:

  • Continuing the editorial process when the concern is satisfactorily resolved.

  • Requesting clarification, corrections, or additional supporting documentation.

  • Requiring further independent review.

  • Rejecting the manuscript where serious integrity concerns remain unresolved or are substantiated.

  • Referring the matter to an appropriate research institution or authority.

A decision to reject a manuscript does not necessarily resolve an allegation of serious research misconduct. Further referral or follow-up may remain appropriate.

3.10. Allegations After Publication

Concerns about published articles will be assessed in accordance with their potential effect on the reliability of the scholarly record.

Depending on the evidence and circumstances, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

Correction: Published when a specific error or omission can be corrected without invalidating the article's principal findings.

Expression of Concern: Considered when there are substantial, unresolved concerns about an article's reliability and readers should be alerted while further assessment or investigation continues.

Retraction: Considered when findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, when serious ethical violations are established, or when other circumstances justify retraction under applicable COPE guidance.

No Further Action: Appropriate when concerns are unsupported, satisfactorily resolved, or do not warrant amendment to the scholarly record.

Where a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is issued, the notice should clearly identify the affected article, explain the reason for the action, and remain publicly accessible.

The original article and relevant notices should be linked appropriately, with the publication record preserved in accordance with applicable editorial and publishing practices.

3.11. Decisions and Appeals

Decisions concerning allegations of misconduct will be based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the journal's responsibility to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

The journal will communicate relevant decisions to the affected parties as appropriate, while respecting confidentiality and legal restrictions.

Individuals who believe that a decision was procedurally unfair or based on a material misunderstanding may submit an appeal with supporting reasons and evidence.

Appeals should, wherever practicable, be considered by an editor or other qualified individual who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

Appeals will be managed under the journal's separate Complaints and Appeals Policy.

4. Implementation and Procedures

Step 1. Receipt and Documentation

The editorial office receives the allegation and records the essential details, including the affected manuscript or publication, the nature of the concern, and the supporting information supplied.

Step 2. Preliminary Screening

The responsible editor determines whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and credible to justify further assessment.

Where necessary, additional evidence or clarification is requested.

Step 3. Assignment of an Impartial Case Handler

The case is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately qualified, unconflicted editor.

Where the allegation involves the responsible editor, an independent person or appropriate publishing authority is designated.

Step 4. Evidence Assessment and Author Response

Relevant manuscript records, publications, data, correspondence, and other available evidence are reviewed.

Affected individuals are ordinarily invited to respond to the concerns within a reasonable period established for the particular case.

Step 5. Institutional Referral Where Appropriate

If the allegation requires formal investigation beyond the journal's authority or access to evidence, the responsible editor contacts the relevant institution or competent body.

The journal may request updates and findings necessary to determine the appropriate editorial response.

Step 6. Editorial Decision

The responsible editor evaluates the available evidence and any relevant institutional findings.

The decision may involve continuation of peer review, manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another proportionate response.

Step 7. Communication and Publication Record

The journal communicates its decision to relevant parties and publishes any necessary post-publication notice.

Notices should be factual, transparent, and sufficiently detailed to explain the action without unnecessarily disclosing confidential information.

Step 8. Recordkeeping and Follow-up

The journal should maintain secure records of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessments, and decisions in accordance with applicable privacy and record-retention requirements.

Unresolved cases should remain subject to appropriate follow-up, particularly where an institutional investigation is ongoing.

This policy will be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary to reflect current best practices in publication ethics.

COPE resources