Research Integrity

Scope

This policy covers concerns including fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts, authorship manipulation, peer-review manipulation, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, misuse of confidential material, data irregularities and other conduct that may compromise the reliability or provenance of the scholarly record.

Submitting a concern

Concerns may be sent confidentially to integrity@eldranacademic.com. Reports should identify the article or manuscript, describe the concern as specifically as possible and provide supporting information where available. Anonymous reports may be considered, although inability to obtain clarification can limit an investigation.

Assessment process

1. Triage. The Publisher determines whether the concern is sufficiently specific, relevant to a journal record, and within the Publisher’s role.

2. Conflict check. Anyone with a material conflict is removed from handling the matter. An independent editor or adviser may be appointed.

3. Evidence preservation. Relevant submission records, versions, correspondence, review history, files and metadata may be preserved to maintain an audit trail.

4. Author response. Where appropriate and safe, the corresponding author and/or relevant coauthors are invited to respond to the concern and provide underlying records.

5. External or institutional involvement. Where the issue requires fact-finding beyond the Publisher’s capacity, the Publisher may contact an author’s institution, ethics committee, funder, research-integrity office or other appropriate body.

6. Scholarly-record action. The editorial decision about correction, expression of concern, retraction or other notice is made on the available evidence and does not necessarily have to wait indefinitely for an external investigation.

Fairness and confidentiality

Allegations are treated as concerns requiring assessment, not as established misconduct. Information is shared on a need-to-know basis, consistent with fairness, legal obligations, data protection and the need to protect the scholarly record. The Publisher may inform affected parties of outcomes while limiting disclosure of confidential or legally sensitive information.

Honest error versus misconduct

A significant error may require correction or retraction regardless of whether misconduct occurred. Conversely, the Publisher avoids labelling conduct as deliberate misconduct without sufficient evidence or an appropriate authoritative finding. Notices should focus on the reliability of the published record and accurately attribute external findings.

Data and reproducibility concerns

Editors may request underlying data, code, laboratory records, analysis outputs, protocols, preregistrations or other materials needed to evaluate a concern. Failure to provide materials does not automatically prove misconduct, because legal, ethical or practical restrictions may exist, but unexplained inability to support published claims may affect the reliability assessment.

Peer-review integrity

The Publisher may investigate suspicious reviewer accounts, fabricated reviewer identities, compromised email addresses, coordinated review rings, undisclosed reviewer-author relationships or attempts to influence reviewer selection. A manuscript may be reassessed or re-reviewed if the integrity of the original review process is materially compromised.

Record keeping and non-retaliation

The Publisher will retain appropriate records of integrity cases and outcomes. Good-faith reporting of a concern will not, by itself, disadvantage an author, reviewer, editor or complainant in unrelated editorial matters. Knowingly false, malicious or abusive allegations may be restricted or otherwise addressed.