Misconduct & Retraction Policy

Jurnal Dharmaputra Hukum Kesehatan (JDHK) is committed to protecting the integrity of the scientific record. This policy sets out how JDHK identifies, investigates, and responds to allegations of research and publication misconduct, and how post-publication corrections are handled.

COPE Retraction Guidelines COPE Misconduct Flowcharts ICMJE Recommendations Declaration of Helsinki UU No. 17/2023 Kesehatan

Policy Overview

JDHK takes all allegations of research misconduct and publication ethics violations seriously, regardless of whether they concern submitted manuscripts, manuscripts currently under review, or articles already published. All investigations are conducted in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and flowcharts, ensuring due process, proportionality, and fairness to all parties involved. This policy applies to all stakeholders — authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

Submitted manuscripts Manuscripts under review Accepted manuscripts (pre-publication) Published articles Reviewer conduct Editorial conduct

1. Types of Research & Publication Misconduct

JDHK recognises the following categories of misconduct. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive. Misconduct may occur intentionally or as a result of negligence; both are treated seriously, though the response is proportionate to the severity and intent involved.

A — Research Misconduct (FFP)

Fabrication

Inventing or making up research data, results, patient records, or findings that were never actually obtained. Includes creation of fictitious study participants, fabricated laboratory measurements, or invented clinical observations.

Falsification

Manipulating research materials, processes, data, or results — including inappropriate image manipulation, selective exclusion of inconvenient data without justification, or misrepresentation of statistical analyses to change or distort findings.

Plagiarism

Appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results, data, or text without proper attribution. Includes copying from others' published work and from one's own previously published work (self-plagiarism / text recycling) without disclosure.

B — Authorship Misconduct

Ghost Authorship

Excluding from the author list an individual who made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work and who meets all four ICMJE authorship criteria.

Gift / Honorary Authorship

Including an individual as an author who did not make a substantial intellectual contribution — e.g., senior faculty, department heads, or supervisors listed merely for prestige or perceived benefit.

Coerced Authorship

Pressuring junior researchers, students, or colleagues to include a senior or influential individual as an author, or to exclude a legitimate contributor, through academic, professional, or institutional coercion.

Unauthorised Authorship Change

Adding, removing, or reordering authors after submission without the written consent of all original authors and without editorial approval, in violation of ICMJE guidelines.

C — Submission & Publishing Misconduct

Duplicate Submission

Submitting the same manuscript, or a manuscript with substantially overlapping content or data, to two or more journals simultaneously without the knowledge of both editors.

Redundant Publication

Publishing the same or substantially similar data, results, or findings in more than one journal without appropriate cross-referencing of the original publication or disclosure to the editor.

Salami Slicing

Artificially dividing the results of a single study into multiple separate publications ("least publishable units") to inflate the apparent output, without appropriate cross-referencing and without each paper having an independent, distinct contribution.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

Failure to disclose financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence the conduct or reporting of the research, as required by ICMJE and JDHK policy.

D — Ethical & Regulatory Violations

Missing Ethics Approval

Conducting or reporting research involving human subjects without obtaining prior approval from a duly constituted Research Ethics Committee (KEPK) or equivalent IRB, in violation of the Declaration of Helsinki and Indonesian law.

Missing Informed Consent

Failure to obtain or document informed consent from human research participants or their legal representatives, in violation of Permenkes No. 290/2008 and ICMJE requirements.

Patient Privacy Violation

Publishing identifiable patient information — including name, date of birth, address, medical record number, or identifiable clinical images — without explicit written consent, in violation of UU PDP No. 27/2022 and UU No. 29/2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran.

Undisclosed AI Misconduct

Using AI tools to generate, fabricate, or falsify data, citations, or content, or failing to disclose the use of AI writing tools in the manuscript preparation in violation of COPE Position Statement on AI (2023).

E — Peer Review & Editorial Misconduct

Breach of Reviewer Confidentiality

Sharing the manuscript or review with unauthorised third parties, or uploading manuscript content to AI platforms in violation of confidentiality obligations.

Coercive Citation

A reviewer or editor pressuring authors to add citations to their own work (or to specific journals or colleagues) that are not necessary for the scientific content of the manuscript.

Biased or Bad-Faith Review

Deliberately recommending rejection of a competitor's work, accepting manuscripts without adequate review, or providing a review designed to delay a competitor's publication rather than evaluate the manuscript on merit.

Peer Review Fraud

Suggesting false reviewer identities, hijacking reviewer accounts, or falsifying peer reviews — a serious form of misconduct that may result in retraction of all associated publications and referral to law enforcement authorities.

2. How to Report Suspected Misconduct

JDHK encourages authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and members of the public to report any suspected research or publication misconduct. Reports can be made at any time — before, during, or after publication. All reports are treated with strict confidentiality. Individuals who report in good faith will be protected from retaliation.

Who May Report

Authors (including co-authors raising concerns about their own work or other listed authors); Reviewers who identify misconduct during review; Editors and editorial board members; Readers and members of the research community; Institutions or research ethics bodies; Third parties (anonymous reports accepted but may limit investigation scope)

What to Include in Your Report

Title of the article or manuscript (and Submission ID if available); DOI or URL of published article (if post-publication); Nature of the concern, described clearly and specifically; Supporting evidence (e.g., screenshots, links, comparison documents, Turnitin reports); Your contact details (optional for anonymous reports); Declaration that the report is made in good faith

Submit Your Report To

Editorial Office — JDHK

amerthamanuaba@gmail.com udiana.krisna@gmail.com

Subject line: "Ethics Concern — [Article Title or Submission ID]"

3. Investigation Process

All allegations are investigated systematically following the relevant COPE flowchart for the type of concern raised. JDHK's investigation procedure ensures due process — meaning all parties are given the opportunity to respond before any action is taken, except where the nature of the concern requires immediate interim measures (e.g., placing a manuscript on hold).

Receipt & Acknowledgement

The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt of the report within 5 working days. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within JDHK's jurisdiction and whether it constitutes a credible allegation warranting investigation.

Interim Measures (if applicable)

If the concern involves a manuscript currently under review or in production, the editorial process may be paused pending investigation. If the concern involves a published article and is sufficiently serious, an Expression of Concern may be published on the article page to alert readers while the investigation is underway.

Notification of Respondent

The corresponding author (or other named respondent) is notified of the concern in writing via OJS or email and is given the opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe (usually 14 working days). The identity of the complainant may be withheld from the respondent to protect the whistleblower.

Evidence Gathering & Assessment

The EiC, together with members of the Editorial Board (who are free of conflicts of interest in the matter), reviews all available evidence — including the original manuscript, Turnitin reports, the respondent's response, and any other materials — against the relevant COPE flowchart. External expert advice may be sought where necessary.

Institutional Referral

Where the misconduct is serious (e.g., data fabrication, FFP, ethical violations involving human subjects), JDHK will refer the matter to the respondent's employing institution or to the relevant Indonesian regulatory body (e.g., KNEPK, IDI, MKEK) for formal investigation. JDHK cooperates fully with institutional investigations.

Decision & Communication

The EiC issues a written decision to all parties, stating the findings and the action taken. The target response time from receipt of report to final decision is 60 working days, though complex cases may take longer. Both the complainant and the respondent are notified of the outcome.

COPE Flowcharts Used: JDHK applies the following COPE flowcharts as appropriate: What to do if you suspect plagiarism; What to do if you suspect fabricated data; What to do if you receive an allegation of authorship dispute; What to do if a reviewer suspects misconduct; What to do about a redundant (duplicate) publication. All flowcharts are available at publicationethics.org.

4. Sanctions & Consequences

Sanctions applied by JDHK are proportionate to the severity and nature of the misconduct, and to whether the misconduct was deliberate or resulted from negligence. Sanctions may be applied individually or in combination.

Minor

Formal written warning to the corresponding author; Requirement to publish a correction or clarification; Request for updated conflict of interest statement or ethics approval

Moderate

Rejection of the submitted or accepted manuscript; Publication of a retraction or expression of concern; Formal notification to the authors' institution or funding body

Severe

Retraction of published article(s); Permanent ban from submitting to or reviewing for JDHK; Referral to professional regulatory bodies (MKEK, IDI, KKI); Referral to law enforcement where criminal conduct is suspected (e.g., data fraud involving patient records under UU PDP No. 27/2022)

Reviewer-Specific

Removal from reviewer panel; Notification to the reviewer's institution; Publication of a retraction if the reviewer's misconduct facilitated a fraudulent publication; Referral to Publons / Web of Science reviewer registry

5. Post-Publication Notices

JDHK maintains a permanent, accurate, and complete scientific record. When errors, concerns, or misconduct are identified after publication, JDHK issues one of the following notices in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2019). Published articles are never deleted from the website; all notices are permanently linked to the original article.

Correction (Erratum / Corrigendum)

When issued: When a small, honest error — typographical mistake, incorrect labelling of a figure or table, arithmetic error, or minor factual inaccuracy — is identified that does not materially affect the conclusions or the validity of the work.

Process: Authors notify the Editorial Office. The corrected version of the article is uploaded to OJS with the changes clearly marked. A Correction notice is published as a separate item in the journal, linked bidirectionally to the original article. The original erroneous version is also kept visible with a clear link to the Correction.

Erratum = error introduced by editors/publisher Corrigendum = error introduced by authors

Expression of Concern

When issued: When JDHK receives credible evidence of potential misconduct or data unreliability, but the investigation is ongoing and a definitive conclusion has not yet been reached. Also used when an institutional investigation is underway and JDHK awaits its outcome.

Process: The Expression of Concern is published as a separate item linked to the original article. It alerts readers that the reliability of the article is being investigated. Authors are notified before publication of the notice. The Expression of Concern is removed and replaced with either a Correction or a Retraction once the investigation concludes.

Retraction

When issued: When the conclusions of a paper can no longer be considered reliable due to (i) major errors that invalidate the work; (ii) confirmed research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); (iii) ethical violations (missing KEPK approval, missing informed consent); (iv) duplicate or redundant publication; or (v) authorship fraud.

Process: Retractions may be initiated by the authors or by the editors. Authors are given the opportunity to respond before a retraction is published unless misconduct is clear-cut and undisputed. A Retraction Notice is published as a separate item and linked prominently to the original article. The original article remains online but is watermarked "RETRACTED" with the date and reason for retraction. The DOI of the retracted article is preserved.

Retraction does not imply intent. Honest error that renders conclusions unreliable is sufficient grounds for retraction. Retraction for misconduct and retraction for honest error are handled with equal process rigour but communicated differently in the notice.

Removal (Exceptional Circumstances Only)

In exceptional and rare circumstances, JDHK may remove a published article from the website entirely — for example, when the article contains identifiable patient information published without consent in violation of UU PDP No. 27/2022, or when a court order requires removal. Removal is distinct from retraction; in such cases a notice explaining the removal is published in its place, and the DOI is preserved as a tombstone record. Removal is never used as a means of censorship or to suppress unwelcome findings.

6. Legal Dimensions & Indonesian Law

Publication misconduct in the context of health law research in Indonesia may carry legal consequences beyond academic sanctions. JDHK operates within Indonesian legal jurisdiction, and the following regulatory frameworks are directly relevant to misconduct scenarios that may arise in submissions to the journal.

Misconduct Type	Applicable Indonesian Regulation	Potential Consequences
Patient data breach / privacy violation	UU No. 27/2022 tentang PDP (Pasal 65–67); UU No. 29/2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran (Pasal 47–48)	Criminal sanction; Administrative fine; Professional sanction by IDI/KKI
Research without KEPK approval	UU No. 17/2023 tentang Kesehatan; Permenkes tentang Etik Penelitian; Declaration of Helsinki	Institutional disciplinary action; Retraction of publication; KEPK sanction
Falsification / fabrication of clinical data	UU No. 29/2004 (Pasal 75–80); KODEKI (Kode Etik Kedokteran Indonesia); UU No. 11/2008 ITE (data fraud)	Criminal prosecution; Medical licence revocation; Retraction
Plagiarism / copyright infringement	UU No. 28/2014 tentang Hak Cipta (Pasal 113); Berne Convention (Indonesia as signatory)	Civil damages; Criminal sanction; Retraction; Academic sanction
Fraud in funded research reporting	UU No. 31/1999 jo UU No. 20/2001 tentang Tindak Pidana Korupsi (if public funds involved); Peraturan BRIN tentang Integritas Riset	Criminal prosecution (corruption); Grant recovery; Institutional sanction

Note: JDHK does not provide legal advice to authors or institutions. Where legal consequences are a possibility, all parties are advised to seek independent legal counsel. JDHK's role is limited to editorial actions (rejection, retraction, correction) and referral to the relevant professional or regulatory body.

7. Appeals

Authors who believe that a misconduct finding against them was made in error, or that the editorial process was procedurally unfair, may appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of receiving the final decision notification and must be directed to the Editor-in-Chief at amerthamanuaba@gmail.com.

Appeal must state specific grounds for dispute New evidence must be clearly identified and attached Reviewed by EiC + independent Editorial Board member Response within 30 working days of appeal receipt Decision on appeal is final

If an author believes the investigation process at the journal level was seriously deficient, they may raise their concern directly with COPE (publicationethics.org). COPE will advise only on process; it does not overturn editorial decisions.

8. Record Keeping & Transparency

JDHK maintains complete internal records of all misconduct allegations and investigations for a minimum of 10 years. These records are kept strictly confidential and are only disclosed to the relevant institutional, regulatory, or legal authority when required by the investigation or by law. The following principles govern JDHK's approach to transparency in post-publication matters.

All post-publication notices are permanently archived Retracted articles are watermarked, not deleted DOIs of retracted articles remain active (tombstone) Retraction reason stated in notice (honest error vs misconduct) Retractions reported to Crossref & DOAJ All notices linked bidirectionally to original article

Report Suspected Misconduct Publication Ethics Policy COPE Flowcharts