Allegetiond of Misconduct

  1. Purpose
    This policy aims to ensure that any allegations of publication ethics violations are handled seriously, fairly, and transparently. JAKP refers to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to maintain the integrity of the editorial process and trust in scientific records.
  2. Scope of Violations
    Ethical violations include, but are not limited to:
    • Fabrication: Creating data or results that were never done.
    • Falsification: Altering data, methods, or results to make them appear valid.
    • Plagiarism: Taking the work or ideas of others without attribution, including multiple publications.
    • Citation Manipulation: Adding irrelevant citations for the sake of visibility or metrics.
    • Concealed Conflicts of Interest: Not disclosing relationships that could affect objectivity.
    • Peer Review Abuse: Falsifying a reviewer's identity or unlawfully influencing the process.
    • Authorship Issues: Includes gift, ghost, or guest authorship, as well as omission of proper names.
    • Research Ethics Violations: Involving human/animal subjects without proper ethical clearance.
  3. Institutional Responsibility
    In the social and political sciences, research often involves communities, public institutions, or vulnerable groups. If there are allegations of serious violations such as data falsification, abuse of authority in the research process, or neglect of participants' rights, the institution where the researcher is based is primarily responsible for conducting the investigation.
    JAKP will act as a liaison to submit reports or requests for clarification to the relevant institutions. JAKP does not take over the authority of the institution in handling the case. We encourage every academic institution and research institute to have a strong ethical system to ensure the protection of all parties, especially research participants from groups with more vulnerable social positions.
  4. Handling Principles
    • Objectivity: Reports are assessed based on evidence, not assumptions.
    • Confidentiality: The identity of the reporter and the reported party is safeguarded throughout the process.
    • Right of Reply: The reported party has the right to answer the allegations in writing.
    • Procedural Justice: There is no decision without a valid preliminary process.
    • Compliance with COPE: All processes refer to international standards.
    • Responsible Communication: Investigation results are communicated in writing to relevant parties.
  5. Distinction of Ethical Issues
    To avoid disproportionate action, JAKP distinguishes between:
    • Editorial or technical errors: such as citation errors or policy ignorance;
    • Serious ethical violations: such as plagiarism, fabrication, or manipulation of peer review;
    • Differences in academic interpretation: legitimate differences in theoretical approach or methodological framework.
  6. Handling Procedure
    a. Reporting
    Reports should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief via official email and should contain:
    • Description of the violation;
    • Manuscript ID or title;
    • Supporting evidence.
      Anonymous reports are accepted when accompanied by verifiable evidence. The reporter is protected from any form of retaliation.
    b. Initial Verification
    The Editor-in-Chief assesses the completeness of the report. If irrelevant or insufficient evidence, the report is closed with a notice (if possible).
    c. Investigation
    If deemed appropriate, the investigation includes:
    • Review of manuscript and data;
    • Correspondence with authors/reviewers;
    • Written requests for clarification;
    • Consultation with editorial board/experts;
    • Coordination with affiliated institutions (if relevant).
    d. Actions and Outcomes
    The results of the investigation can be:
    • No violation found: manuscript processed or article retained;
    • Minor errors: warning or correction;
    • Serious violations:
      • Rejection or retraction of manuscript;
      • Notification to the institution;
      • Embargo on new manuscript submissions;
      • Retraction notice or expression of concern.
    Decisions will be published transparently. If the allegations are not proven, the JAKP may close the case without publication, or publish a clarification if the issue has become public.
    e. Appeals
    The complainant may appeal in writing by including new evidence. Appeals are reviewed by an independent team from the editorial board or outside experts.
  7. Evaluation and Documentation
    All processes are confidentially recorded for periodic evaluation. Findings are used to improve editorial systems and update policies.
  8. Whistleblower Protection and Restrictions
    JAKP protects whistleblowers from the risk of retaliation, and keeps the reporting mechanism from being misused to attack certain parties personally or academically.
  9. Prevention and Education
    JAKP actively prevents violations by:
    • Providing ethical guidelines;
    • Training editors and reviewers;
    • Using plagiarism detection tools;
    • Analyzing case patterns to design early warning systems.
  10. Social Science and Public Administration Context
    JAKP recognizes that research in public administration is usually conducted jointly, involves various parties, and is highly dependent on the social context. Therefore:
    • Contributions from bureaucrats, civil society organizations, and the research community should be valued and fairly credited for their roles.
    • Who the authors are and what their respective responsibilities are should be agreed upon at the outset, to avoid conflicts later on.
    This policy will be reviewed regularly and updated in line with the latest developments in scientific publishing ethics and practices.