Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct Policy

The Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET) is committed to maintaining the integrity of the research it publishes. Authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher share responsibility for ensuring that scholarly work is reported accurately, evaluated fairly, and published in accordance with accepted ethical standards.

JIPVET is published by Universitas Papua. The journal's publication ethics procedures are informed by guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

This policy applies to manuscripts under editorial consideration, published articles, and concerns about the conduct of individuals involved in the journal's editorial and publication processes. It describes the standards expected by JIPVET and the procedures for addressing suspected research or publication misconduct.

1. Scope and Ethical Principles

JIPVET considers the reliability of the scholarly record to be a primary editorial responsibility. Research must be presented truthfully, with sufficient information to allow readers to assess the methods, evidence, and conclusions.

The journal applies the following principles to its editorial and publishing activities:

• Research findings must be reported accurately and without fabrication or falsification.
• Intellectual contributions and previously published material must be appropriately acknowledged.
• Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit and applicable ethical requirements.
• Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and appropriately managed.
• Manuscript evaluation and allegations of misconduct must be handled fairly and with due regard for confidentiality.
• Errors or integrity concerns affecting published articles must be addressed through appropriate editorial action.

The journal distinguishes an honest research error from deliberate misconduct. Nevertheless, both may require correction or other action when they affect the reliability of published findings.

2. Research and Publication Misconduct

JIPVET does not accept conduct that misrepresents research evidence, obscures intellectual ownership, or compromises the integrity of editorial assessment.

Matters that may constitute research or publication misconduct include:

• Fabrication: Inventing data, observations, experiments, or research results and presenting them as genuine.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, images, or results in ways that misrepresent the research.
• Plagiarism: Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
• Redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research as a distinct original contribution without adequate disclosure or justification.
• Authorship misconduct: Inappropriately including or excluding authors, misrepresenting contributions, or changing authorship without the necessary agreement.
• Peer-review manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, interfering with independent assessment, or attempting to influence confidential editorial decisions.
• Citation manipulation: Requiring or adding citations primarily to increase citation counts rather than to support scholarly arguments.
• Misleading disclosure: Concealing relevant funding, competing interests, ethical concerns, or other information necessary for responsible evaluation.
• Unethical research conduct: Conducting or reporting research without applicable ethical safeguards, approvals, or required permissions.

Concerns involving inappropriate use of generative AI, manipulation of research images, or unreliable analytical results are evaluated according to their nature and potential effect on the scholarly record.

A suspicion or allegation does not by itself establish misconduct. Findings must be based on an appropriate assessment of the evidence.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the integrity of their research and the accuracy of information submitted for publication. All listed authors must approve the submitted manuscript and accept responsibility for their contributions.

Authors are expected to:

1. Present research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions accurately, without misleading omissions or unsupported interpretations.
2. Ensure that submitted work is original and that previously published material is properly cited and disclosed.
3. Describe research procedures and analytical methods sufficiently to support scientific assessment and reproducibility where feasible.
4. Retain relevant research records and provide supporting evidence when reasonably requested during editorial assessment.
5. Disclose funding sources, relevant competing interests, and author contributions.
6. Report ethical approvals, exemptions, informed consent, or other research permissions where applicable.
7. Disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in accordance with JIPVET's published policy.
8. Inform the editor about related publications, potentially overlapping manuscripts, or circumstances relevant to originality.
9. Respond accurately and cooperatively to reasonable requests for clarification concerning research integrity.

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal and for ensuring that all co-authors are informed of substantial editorial concerns or proposed corrections.

Authors who identify a significant error in their published work must promptly notify the editorial office and cooperate in determining an appropriate correction or other action.

4. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers assist editors by providing independent scientific assessments. Their reports must be objective, evidence-based, and relevant to the manuscript under consideration.

Reviewers must:

• Accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise and sufficient availability.
• Disclose potential conflicts of interest before or during the review process.
• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, supplementary materials, and editorial communications.
• Avoid using unpublished research information for personal or professional advantage.
• Provide constructive criticism supported by scientific reasoning.
• Alert the editor to possible plagiarism, data irregularities, unethical research, or other integrity concerns.
• Comply with the journal's restrictions on generative AI and unauthorized sharing of manuscript material.

Reviewers must not make unsupported accusations of misconduct, demand unnecessary citations for personal benefit, or contact authors directly concerning confidential submissions without editorial authorization.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not constitute the final decision on publication.

5. Responsibilities of Editors and Publisher

Editors are responsible for overseeing the scientific assessment of manuscripts, applying journal policies consistently, and protecting the integrity of the editorial process.

Editorial decisions must be based on scientific merit, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological quality, and compliance with research ethics.

Editors must not allow an author's institutional affiliation, financial circumstances, personal relationships, or other inappropriate interests to determine the outcome of a submission.

Editors are expected to:

• Conduct initial editorial screening and arrange independent peer review where appropriate.
• Manage actual or potential conflicts of interest.
• Protect unpublished manuscripts and confidential reviewer information.
• Evaluate reviewer recommendations alongside the manuscript and relevant evidence.
• Examine allegations of publication misconduct through fair and documented procedures.
• Provide authors an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
• Take necessary editorial action when published information is unreliable or misleading.

Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict that could compromise their impartiality. Such manuscripts must be assigned to another appropriately authorized, unconflicted editor.

Universitas Papua, as the publisher, supports the administration, continuity, and ethical operation of JIPVET. Financial arrangements, publication fees, institutional interests, and other publishing activities must not improperly influence individual editorial decisions.

6. Research Ethics and Ethical Oversight

Research submitted to JIPVET must comply with applicable ethical, institutional, and legal requirements relevant to the research design and study setting.

Research involving experimental animals, livestock, wildlife, or other vertebrates must include appropriate information concerning ethical oversight, animal handling, welfare safeguards, and relevant permissions.

Where ethical review is required, authors must report approval from the appropriate committee or authority. If a study is formally exempt from ethical review, the basis for that exemption must be stated and supporting documentation provided when requested.

For research involving farmers, animal owners, veterinarians, or other human participants, authors must address applicable informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, and ethical review requirements.

Research involving identifiable personal information must not disclose such information without an appropriate legal and ethical basis, including consent for publication where required.

More detailed requirements for animal-related research are provided in JIPVET's Animal Research Ethics and Welfare Policy.

7. Reporting Suspected Research Misconduct

Concerns about suspected research or publication misconduct may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, or other individuals who possess relevant information.

Concerns may relate to manuscripts under consideration or articles that have already been published.

Reports should provide sufficient information to permit an initial assessment, including the article or manuscript concerned, the nature of the allegation, and relevant supporting evidence.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain specific and verifiable evidence. The inability to contact an anonymous complainant may limit further clarification and communication.

If a concern involves an editor, it must be referred to an authorized individual who is not implicated in the matter and has no relevant conflict of interest.

Individuals raising concerns in good faith should not be subjected to adverse editorial treatment for submitting a legitimate report.

8. Assessment and Investigation of Allegations

Allegations are assessed according to their seriousness, the available evidence, and the journal's responsibility for the scholarly record.

The editorial procedure may involve the following stages:

1. Initial assessment. The editor examines the allegation and determines whether it falls within the journal's responsibilities.
2. Evidence review. Relevant manuscripts, publications, research materials, editorial records, or other supporting documents are examined where accessible.
3. Conflict-of-interest check. Individuals with a relevant conflict are excluded from determining the outcome of the concern.
4. Author clarification. The corresponding author may be asked to provide an explanation, relevant documentation, or supporting research information.
5. Further assessment. The editor may obtain independent scientific advice when specialist expertise is necessary.
6. Institutional consultation. Serious or unresolved concerns may be referred to the appropriate research institution or responsible authority.
7. Editorial determination. The editor considers the available evidence and determines the action necessary within the journal's editorial responsibilities.

JIPVET may seek information from research institutions when questions concerning the authenticity of research records, ethical approvals, or researcher conduct cannot reasonably be resolved by editorial assessment alone.

Formal institutional investigations of research misconduct ordinarily fall within the responsibilities of the relevant institution or competent authority. The journal retains responsibility for decisions concerning manuscripts and published articles.

Allegations are not treated as established findings until the available evidence has been appropriately assessed.

9. Editorial Actions Before Publication

When a concern is identified before publication, the handling editor determines whether the manuscript can proceed, requires clarification, or should be subject to further editorial action.

Possible actions include:

• Requesting correction of incomplete citations, disclosures, or other correctable deficiencies.
• Requesting additional evidence, research records, or explanations relevant to the concern.
• Seeking further independent scientific or ethical assessment.
• Pausing editorial consideration while a serious unresolved concern is examined.
• Rejecting a manuscript where serious misconduct or substantial noncompliance with publication ethics has been established.
• Referring serious matters to an appropriate institution when further investigation is necessary.

A request for clarification or additional review does not imply that misconduct has occurred. Decisions are based on the scientific and ethical implications of the findings.

A manuscript may also be rejected on scientific grounds independently of any misconduct allegation.

10. Post-Publication Research Integrity

Concerns identified after publication require consideration of their implications for the reliability and interpretation of the published article.

Depending on the evidence and circumstances, JIPVET may determine that the scholarly record requires:

• Correction: To address an identifiable error that can be corrected without invalidating the article's principal findings.
• Expression of concern: To alert readers to serious unresolved questions about the integrity or reliability of a published article.
• Retraction: When the findings are unreliable or serious publication integrity concerns warrant withdrawal of the article's scientific claims from the record.

An editorial action may be required because of an honest error as well as misconduct. The purpose is to maintain an accurate scholarly record, not to impose a disciplinary penalty through publication notices.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions should be clearly identified, dated, and linked to the affected article. The original publication record should remain traceable, subject to exceptional legal or ethical restrictions.

The specific criteria and procedures are described in JIPVET's Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern Policy.

11. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Appeals

The journal handles allegations and related correspondence with appropriate confidentiality, while recognizing that limited disclosure may be necessary for fair assessment, institutional consultation, or compliance with applicable obligations.

Individuals whose conduct is questioned should receive an appropriate opportunity to respond before an adverse misconduct-related conclusion is reached.

Editors must distinguish between verified findings, unresolved allegations, and disagreements about scientific interpretation.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe an editorial decision involves a material factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest.

Appeals are examined in accordance with JIPVET's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Reconsideration does not guarantee a reversal of the original decision.

The journal maintains appropriate confidential records of material integrity concerns, correspondence, and editorial actions to support accountability and continuity.