MISCONDUCT HANDLING

SECTION 1: PURPOSE, SCOPE AND GOVERNING STANDARDS
1.1 Purpose
This Misconduct Handling Policy ('the Policy') details the procedures the International Journal of Software Engineering and Computer Systems (IJSECS), published by UMPSA Press, and its editors use to handle allegations and evidence of research and publishing misconduct. It establishes clear, transparent, and consistently applied procedures to protect the integrity of the scholarly record, ensure fairness for all parties, and align with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) standards. This Policy complements the UMPSA Press Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and outlines the responsibilities of all involved. It also describes the actions to take if these responsibilities are breached.

1.2 Scope
i) This Policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to, under active review at, or already published in the IJSECS, published by UMPSA Press, regardless of the date of submission or publication.
ii) The Policy applies to all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, co-authors, corresponding authors, peer reviewers, section editors, associate editors, editors-in-chief, editorial board members, copyeditors, production staff, and UMPSA Press personnel.
iii) There is no statute of limitations on the application of this Policy. Concerns about misconduct in articles published years or decades previously are investigated with the same procedural rigour as pre-publication concerns. This position is consistent with COPE Core Practice 10 and with Clause 4.1 of the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
iv) This Policy extends to misconduct that may have occurred during the conduct of the research reported in a manuscript (research misconduct) as well as to misconduct that occurs during the submission, review, and publication process itself (publishing misconduct).

1.3 Governing Standards
All procedures in this Policy are grounded in and consistent with the following authoritative international standards. Where any conflict or ambiguity exists between this Policy and a governing standard, the governing standard takes precedence:
i) COPE Core Practices are adopted. This Policy specifically implements Authorship and Contributorship, Complaints and Appeals, Conflicts of Interest, Data and Reproducibility, Ethical Oversight, Peer Review Processes, Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections, and Research and Publication Misconduct.
ii) All retraction procedures in this Policy implement the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
iii) All investigation procedures reference the applicable COPE flowchart.
iv) Authorship criteria and conflict-of-interest disclosure standards follow the ICMJE recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Journals, adapted for engineering and technology disciplines.
v) The principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and good stewardship govern the interpretation of this Policy.
vi) For research involving human participants, the Declaration of Helsinki sets the ethical oversight requirements.
vii) All procedures are designed to maintain compliance with ethics policies, peer review integrity, editorial independence, and correction/retraction practices.
viii) All procedures meet the digital open-access journal criteria for plagiarism policies, evidence of ethical publishing, and preservation.
ix) Procedures are designed to demonstrate the required editorial rigour and ethical publishing practices.
x) Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, independent of any revenue sources, and are free from bias regarding the authors' nationality, ethnicity, beliefs, race, religion, gender, or affiliation. This policy is publicly available on the journal's website and is applicable to all content types.

SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS
The definitions below explain all terms used in this Policy. They mainly follow the COPE Core Practices, ICMJE Recommendations, and COPE Retraction Guidelines. If a term appears here but is not defined, the COPE definition will be used.
Fabrication involves inventing data, results, experimental conditions, observations, or any part of a research record. This includes creating false datasets, presenting hypothetical scenarios as real, fabricating survey responses, and inventing citations or source materials.
Falsification involves manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or altering, selectively omitting, or misrepresenting data, images, or results, in a way that the research record no longer accurately reflects what was done, observed, or discovered.
Image Manipulation is any modification of a research image (figure, micrograph or graphical output) that affects the scientific content of that image beyond what is permitted in accordance with journal guidelines on image processing, such as uniform adjustments to brightness or contrast over the entire image.
Plagiarism is the use of another's words, ideas, data, methods, figures or intellectual works (published and unpublished) in any manner that does not give appropriate acknowledgement to their source (intentional or unintentional). That may involve direct copying, close paraphrase without citation, mosaic plagiarism (stitched-together phrases taken from different sources and presented as a coherent whole) or attribution of ideas claimed to others.
Self-Plagiarism refers to a specific type of plagiarism in which an author duplicates parts of their own previously published text, data, figures, or methodological descriptions in another manuscript without proper citation and without communicating that the work was previously reported. This misleads readers by undermining the submission's originality.
Translation Plagiarism is using a work that has already been published in a different language and resubmitting/publishing it without acknowledging the prior publication, the original author(s) (if necessary), and obtaining permission from the original publisher.
Mosaic Plagiarism is about mixing text from different sources with the author’s own work, where a few phrases are slightly changed. The technique is designed to risk copying and escape detection by using similarity software.
Citation Manipulation refers to any practice that artificially increases citation counts. This includes coercive citation, in which authors are pressured to add unwarranted references to reviewers' or editors' work; citation stacking, in which journals mutually overcite one another; and ghost citation, in which references are included that do not actually support the cited claim.
Duplicate Submission refers to submitting a manuscript, or a nearly identical one, to multiple journals at the same time without informing all editors involved.
Duplicate Publication occurs when findings that have already been published in a similar form, such as in another journal, conference proceedings, book chapter, or publicly accessible venue, are republished without proper disclosure and cross-referencing.
Redundant Publication, also known as Salami Slicing, involves splitting the results of a single study into multiple manuscripts, each reporting only a small part of the overall findings. This approach is often used to inflate the number of publications produced by a single dataset or project.
Ghost Authorship refers to omitting a person from the published author list who made contributions qualifying them for authorship based on the ICMJE four-criterion standard.
Gift or Honorary Authorship occurs when a person is listed as an author without having made any significant intellectual contribution. This is usually because of their senior position, institutional authority, funding, or personal obligation.
Fake Peer Review is an alteration of the peer review process in which original, independent evaluation is replaced by reviews from impostors, biased, or non-independent individuals. This includes creating fake reviewer profiles, using author-controlled email addresses or having colleagues impersonate independent peer reviewers.
Coercive Citation is the practice in which a reviewer/editor requires an author to cite certain papers, often their own, and this lacks scientific justification for inclusion.
Conflict of Interest refers to any financial, personal, professional, institutional, or ideological connection that could — whether it truly does or not — unduly affect the design, execution, review, publication, or subsequent assessment of research. Such conflicts can be actual, potential, or perceived.
The Complainant is the individual who raises a concern about suspected research or publishing misconduct. A whistleblower acting in good faith raises a concern they genuinely and reasonably believe to be justified, without intending to harm the respondent.
Respondent is the person alleged to have committed misconduct and the subject of an investigation under this Policy.
An Expression of Concern is a statement issued by a journal editor to notify readers of particular, credible concerns about the integrity of a published article, while a formal investigation is ongoing. It does not indicate that misconduct has been found.
An Erratum is a correction notice issued by the publisher to address an error introduced during the production process of a published article, such as typesetting, formatting, copyediting, or data entry by journal staff.
A Corrigendum is a correction notice issued by the author(s) to fix an error in a published article that originated from the submitted manuscript.
A Retraction is an official removal of a published article from the academic record, issued when the work's findings or conclusions are so fundamentally flawed, due to honest mistakes or misconduct, that it can no longer be considered reliable. Links to the article, although labelled retracted in all databases, remain available.
The Institutional Research Integrity Officer is the person within an author's employing institution responsible for receiving and handling formal allegations of misconduct from outside individuals or organisations, as well as leading or supervising investigations.
Sanctions are formal actions imposed on a respondent after an investigation indicates a violation of this Policy. Editorial decisions, such as rejections, should be treated separately and applied on top of any editorial actions.
Due Process refers to the rights provided to a respondent during an investigation involving misconduct. These include being told what the charges are, access to evidence against them, and the opportunity to reply and appeal.
The COPE Flowchart is a decision-tree-style guideline from the Committee on Publication Ethics that suggests possible actions for specific instances of misconduct. Although these flowcharts serve as normative rather than legally enforceable rules, they are widely regarded as the global standard for the handling of journal misconduct.
Selective Reporting is the practice of excluding negative, null, or otherwise difficult results during manuscript writing; after-the-fact redefinition of primary outcomes; failure to report multiple comparisons; and p-hacking, where authors manipulate their statistical analyses to force a desired significance level.
An Interim Protective Measure is defined as any action taken by the EIC before the conclusion of a misconduct investigation to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and the publication process. These steps may include pausing an assessment, retracting an acceptance decision or issuing an Expression of Concern (EoC). Such actions do not indicate that any wrongdoing has been established.

SECTION 3: CATEGORIES OF MISCONDUCT
Each misconduct type is presented in operational terms, distinguishing between innocent errors and malpractice, and describing the main indicators that could suggest a need for investigation. This section also serves as a reference for editorial staff when deciding whether an issue is credible.

3.1 Fabrication and Falsification
3.1.1 Fabrication
i) Fabrication is a more serious form of research misconduct because it involves an individual creating research results or creating false research records, data, or experimental conditions that do not exist.
ii) Suspicious patterns in manipulated data include statistically significant deviations from natural variation in the reported data, such as improbable clustering around the population mean or multiple records with identical outcomes, represented with several decimal places.
iii) Other indicators include data that are inconsistent with the reported sample size or experimental conditions, discrepancies between data in the manuscript and the supplemental files, abnormally uniform standard deviations or error bars, and unwillingness or inability to provide original data files.
iv) The systematic nature of the discrepancies, the implausibility of the data distribution, and/or the absence of a plausible source of error capable of producing such a pattern indicate fabrication.

3.1.2 Falsification and image manipulation
i) Falsification involves manipulating research materials, equipment, or process or changing or omitting data or results, such that the research is not accurately represented. Typical examples include deleting points from analyses without justification, changing numerical values, splicing images taken in different experiments, copying parts of an image within a figure, or presenting data from one experimental condition as if it were from another.
ii) Only uniform changes at the image level to brightness, contrast and colour balance can be applied to the entire image in a manner that does not remove visible features. Clear composite figures, in which separate images have been amalgamated for presentation, with the amalgamation described in the figure legend.
iii) The EIC should consider whether image analysis software and independent expertise in the relevant technique are necessary to review image manipulation issues. The process to be applied is described in the COPE flowchart, which will be used when a suspect fabricates data.

3.2 Text, Attribution, and Citation Misconduct
3.2.1 Plagiarism
i) Plagiarism varies in severity, from outright copying (most severe) to neglecting to attribute a paraphrased idea (least severe). The editorial response is adjusted based on this severity.
ii) When evaluating a similarity report, exclude certain types of similarity from the score to avoid falsely indicating plagiarism. These include correctly quoted and attributed text in quotation marks, standard methodological phrases, properly cited text, sections of the manuscript previously submitted in the editorial system, and reference lists.
iii) Mosaic plagiarism, involving the insertion of material from various sources without attribution alongside original text to avoid anti-plagiarism software, is considered a form of cheating as serious as copying word-for-word due to its deceptive nature.
iv) Plagiarism occurs when someone claims another person's conceptual framework, analytical approach, or research design as their own original work, without copying words. It is considered plagiarism even when no textual similarity is found.

3.2.2 Citation Manipulation
i) Coercive citation by a reviewer occurs when: an author complaint cites reviewer comments demanding specific, unjustified references; there is a pattern of such demands across multiple manuscripts reviewed by the same reviewer; or review reports show an unusual number of references to one author's work without valid scientific reasons.
ii) Journal-level citation stacking is detected through bibliometric analysis of the journal's citation profile. An abrupt, unexplained increase in citations from a few journals, or reciprocal citation patterns between journals, may indicate citation stacking.
iii) Both coercive citation and citation stacking are reportable to COPE. UMPSA Press may report confirmed cases of citation manipulation to the relevant indexing authorities and the employers of those involved.

3.3 Submission and Publication Misconduct
i) Cases of duplicate or redundant submissions are differentiated by intent and extent. If an author withdraws properly from the first journal and then submits to a second journal after a reasonable waiting period without receiving a decision, this does not constitute a duplicate submission.
ii Salami slicing is the subjective judgment of whether data from two or more publications have been combined into a broader study. Shared participants, datasets or methods sections are strong indicators of salami slicing.
iii) If the new submission substantially expands on the original (typically at least 60% new content, analysis, results and discussion), IJSECS may accept it if a prior conference publication is disclosed. This is based on the manuscript being reviewed and the Editor-in-Chief acknowledging prior publication.

3.4 Authorship Misconduct
i) The ICMJE four-criterion standard (see Section 2 definitions) is used to assess authorship disputes. Those who only participated in one or two of these criteria, such as funding and approving the manuscript at its final stage, with no significant intellectual contributions, should be recognised instead.
ii) Ghost authorship arises when a named author denies having made the claimed contribution, or when an unlisted individual claims to have made substantive intellectual contributions, supported by documentation such as email correspondence, tracked changes in draft manuscripts with comments from the unlisted person, and acknowledgements in complementary publications.
iii) The use of an AI tool does not constitute authorship. If authors include an AI tool as a person author, whether purposefully or due to a misunderstanding of the policy, the submission will be rejected and returned for correction before peer review commences.

3.5 Peer Review and Editorial Misconduct
i) Detection of reviewer misconduct is done through author complaints, patterns emerging across reviews in editor quality audits and reports from other journals. The most common problems include demands for citations in exchange for reviews, the use of review content for their own research, and the deliberate delay of reviews to hinder competing publications.
ii) Editor misconduct is detected through author or reviewer complaints passed to the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel, peer comparisons of editorial decision data that reveal systematic bias in decision-making, and internal audits of editorial records. Since editors have greater power than authors, such misconduct is very serious.
iii) Manipulation of peer review, such as fake reviewers' profiles, hacked email accounts, and coordinated reviews, is recognised by comparing institutional emails with staff directories from target universities, searching for unusual reviewer behaviour, such as rapid responses, or analysing the similarity in language between manuscripts and their corresponding review reports.

3.6 Ethical Violations in Research Conduct
i) Lack of ethics approval disqualifies a manuscript from publication. If an author states that ethics approval was not required, they must provide a specific reason supported by reference to the relevant institutional or national guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief may require an independent verification of this exemption claim.
ii) Severe misconduct also includes violations of privacy and data protection, such as publishing identifiable information about research participants or inadvertently disclosing participant details in supplementary files without explicit consent. They need immediate corrective measures, sometimes retraction.
iii) The EIC consults with the appropriate national or institutional biosafety authority regarding concerns about dual-use research. When an examination of a major dual-use concern is needed, the EIC might ask authors to amend the manuscript to remove identifying technical information they consider sensitive, or to refrain from publishing it altogether.

3.7 Artificial Intelligence Misuse
i) If the use is disclosed, the employment of AI tools for language editing, literature summarisation or stylistic improvements of text written by authors is not professional misconduct. Authors must take full responsibility for the accuracy and reliability of their content.
ii) Fabrication is when AI tools are used to generate data, results, statistical outputs, literature summaries or citations to sources that don’t exist, then being passed off as verified independently, as per Section 3.1
iii) Submitting AI-generated text as one's own original analysis or intellectual contribution without disclosure constitutes a dishonest act that undermines the rationale for authorship attribution. The degree of editorial response falls somewhere between the extent of undisclosed AI use and the extent to which it perverts the authors' true intellectual contribution.

SECTION 4: RAISING A CONCERN - PROCEDURE AND PROTECTIONS
4.1 Who May Raise a Concern
An individual with reasonable knowledge of potential research or publishing misconduct involving the IJSECS may raise concerns. Authors, co-authors, peer reviewers, editors, editorial board members, institutional staff, competing researchers, journalists, students, and members of the public. UMPSA Press does not require complainants to show that they have a personal interest in the issue.

4.2 How to Submit
i) Concerns should be written to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, with a copy to the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel at ethics@umpsa.edu.my. The respondent party may want to document verbal concerns in writing and submit the information with the complainant's approval.
ii) A complete concern submission should include: (a) the name and contact details of the complainant, or an explanation for requested anonymity; (b) a clearly written factual report of the misconduct claim itself; (c) identification of the specific manuscript/article/process that is subject to concern including the journal, manuscript ID/DOI, and author names; (d) all supporting evidence where possible: this may include copies of previous publications in which relevant data appear together with clear information concerning screens shots, data files, correspondence or any other evidence which is available to support this concern; and (e) as far as they are aware there are no other parties/journals that have been informed regarding the same concern.
iii) Anonymous concerns are considered where: the concern is accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence to enable an investigation without identifying the complainant; and there is a plausible reason for anonymity (e.g., the complainant is a junior researcher who fears retaliation from a senior author). Anonymous concerns that cannot be investigated due to insufficient evidence are logged but cannot proceed to a formal investigation.
iv) Where a concern is submitted directly to COPE or to a third party (e.g., a research funding body), UMPSA Press will cooperate fully with any resulting enquiry. It will initiate its own parallel investigation under this Policy.

4.3 Triage: Concerns Involving Specific Parties
i) Concern involves the EIC:  Must be submitted directly to the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel. The EIC is recused from all aspects of the investigation. The Deputy EIC or an alternative independent editor handles the editorial aspects of any affected manuscripts.
ii) Concern involves an Editorial Board member: Submitted to the EIC with a copy to the Ethics Advisory Panel. The board member is immediately recused from all manuscripts they are currently handling.
iii) Concern involves a peer reviewer: Submitted to the EIC. The relevant review is suspended pending initial assessment. If the concern is credible, the reviewer is removed from the database.
iv) Concern involves UMPSA Press personnel: Submitted to the Chair of the Ethics Advisory Panel and simultaneously submitted to the UMPSA Press Director. The Panel investigates independently of UMPSA Press's management.
v) Concern involves multiple journals: If more than one journal is part of the same concern, upon determining that there are substantive grounds for concern, UMPSA Press or editors should also inform all other implicated journals and share relevant evidence under appropriate confidentiality protections.

4.4 Good Faith Protection
i) An individual raises a good faith report if they have a reasonable belief that illegal behaviour is occurring or may have occurred, and they have no knowledge that the information in the report is false. Good faith does not require certainty; it requires a reasonable and evidence-based suspicion.
ii) Good-faith complainants are absolutely protected from (a) having their manuscripts rejected for reasons related to the complaint; (b) removal from editorial or peer-review roles without independent justification; (c) negative reviews based on knowledge of the identity of a complainant, (d) any adverse action in relation to systems at the journal directly related to participation in an investigation; and (e) public identification as a complainant participating in an investigation without consent.
iii) The complainant does not disclose the identity of a respondent, any institutional party, or any third party to whom disclosure may be made without the complainant's written consent, unless required by applicable law and necessary for a formal investigation to proceed.
iv) Bringing bad-faith allegations, intentionally fabricating or grossly misrepresenting evidence for the purpose of harming the reputation of a respondent or preventing competing work from being published is a violation of this Policy. Section 8 at the following addresses sanctions against bad-faith complainants.

SECTION 5: INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
For all types of misconduct, investigations are conducted in accordance with the relevant COPE flowchart. Designed as a continuous six-step process, it is the primary framework for every investigation, whether conducted before or after publication. Each phase defines responsibilities, timelines, deliverables, and escalation points. The framework follows the COPE Core Practice (Research and Publication Misconduct), which provides descriptive procedures for handling misconduct. These need to be implemented consistently and allow for quick notification to all relevant parties.

Stage 1: Receipt and Logging, and Initial Acknowledgement
i) Upon receipt of a written concern, the Ethics Coordinator in the UMPSA Press shall log it as a confidential misconduct in the relevant Confidential Register within three (3) working days and allocate an individual case reference number. Data in the register entry includes date received, case reference number, journal name, manuscript or article identifier, type of allegation (category), complainant name (if provided), names of reporting parties (respondent(s)), and receiving officer.
ii) A written acknowledgement is provided to the complainant within five (5) working days of receipt. The acknowledgement confirms receipt of the concern, the case reference number, the name and contact details of the designated case handler (the EIC or, where the EIC is recused, the designated alternative), and an indication of the next step in the procedure.
iii) Where the concern does not contain sufficient information to enable even an initial assessment, where no specific manuscript is identified or where the allegation is wholly unsubstantiated, the case handler contacts the complainant to request the missing information before proceeding. If the missing information is not provided within twenty-one (21) days, the concern is logged as 'insufficient to proceed' and closed, with written notice to the complainant.

Stage 2: Initial Assessment
i) The EIC (or designated alternative) conducts an initial credibility assessment within ten (10) working days of logging the concern. The purpose of the initial assessment is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to evaluate whether the concern is: (a) within the scope of this Policy; (b) credible, meaning it is supported by specific evidence that is consistent with the allegation; and (c) sufficiently distinct from settled scientific disagreement, which is not investigated as misconduct.
ii) At the initial assessment stage, the EIC reviews: the complainant's submission and supporting evidence; the manuscript or article identified in the complaint; the relevant similarity report (for plagiarism concerns); the relevant reviewer records (for peer review concerns); and any other readily accessible documentary evidence.
iii A decision is made from four options after the initial assessment; (a) No Action: Does not fall within scope, is incredible, or represents a question of legitimate scientific disagreement to which the complainant receives notification with reasons; (b) Informal Resolution: Fulfils criteria for informal resolution whereby an action may be taken with respect to minor deviations that can be addressed without formal investigation e.g. by contacting the authors to request clarification and/or a small correction; (c) Proceed to Stage 3: Fulfils criterion for proceeding to this next stage where a formal investigation is warranted due to credible breach; (d) Urgent Interim Measure Required: Meets criteria for Urgent interim protective measure where integrity of scholarly record establishes immediate action required such as suspension of review process, publication of Expression of Concern etc. before investigation concludes.
iv) A Stage 2 finding of 'No Action' does not prevent resubmitting the issue when new evidence becomes available. Those completed at Stage 2, if established, are entered upon the Misconduct Register.

Stage 3: Notification of Respondent
i) If the Stage 2 determination indicates that a formal investigation should proceed, the respondent is notified in writing by the EIC within five (5) working days of this Stage 2 decision. The letter of notification must: (a) outline the nature of concern by category; (b) summarise the allegation using factual and neutral language without any prejudicial wording; (c) offer copies of all relevant evidence submitted by the complainant in support, redacted where necessary to disguise somebody's identity as appropriate; and (d) allow respondent a written response within twenty-one (21) calendar days.
ii) A notification letter must not make factual allegations of misconduct; use language that suggests there is a predetermined conclusion to be drawn; disclose the name of the complainant without their consent; or identify witnesses or other third parties who provided information in confidence to the investigation.
iii) If the respondent is an author, the EIC only notifies the corresponding author, who must consult with all co-authors and provide a collective reply on behalf of the authorship group (except in cases where an individual Co-Author is identified).
iv) EIC issues a single reminder after twenty-one (21) days have lapsed if the respondent does not respond. The reminder comes with a seven (7) day extension to the party concerned. And of course, if no response is received, the investigation continues solely based on the material evidence found. Any non-engagement by the prosecution is recorded on the Misconduct Register and could be taken into account when deciding which sanction will apply.

Stage 4: Formal Investigation
i) The EIC formally investigates in consultation with the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel. The investigating team shall consider all evidence available. The original manuscript or published article in question; All submitted versions of that manuscript, including any revisions; Similarity detection reports and corresponding source matches; Materials submitted by the complainant with supporting evidence; Written response from the respondent rebutting either complaint and/or evidentiary issues; A reviewer's report (and any correspondence relevant to the investigation); Records held by an institution made available under Section 4.3. Professional opinions from independently sought external experts during an investigation.
ii) If the issue concerns an alleged alteration to the image, the investigation team may decide to conduct specialist image analysis using industry-standard forensic imaging software. An independent, qualified expert performs this analysis, and their findings are recorded in the investigation record.
iii) Where the allegation is particularly complex or technical and is beyond the expertise of our editorial team to assess, the EIC may appoint an independent subject-matter expert to give a formal written opinion. As such, the expert is appointed based on subject-matter expertise, is neutral to all parties, and signs a confidentiality undertaking.
iv) If the concern requires an institutional investigation (e.g., fabrication, falsification, or serious disclosure of undisclosed conflicts of interest), the EIC shall write to the respondent's institutional Research Integrity Officer (RIO), summarising the factual basis for the concern and any supporting evidence. The EIC directs the journal's investigation to avoid duplication of effort and ensure consistency with a concurrent institutional investigation. The journal's investigation does not conclude until an institutional investigation is completed, but the institution's ultimately conclusion may influence its results.
v) The formal investigation needs to be completed within forty-five (45) working days of Stage 3. This timeline may be extended for complex cases requiring institutional coordination or specialist assessment. Still, both parties are notified as soon as possible and, at a minimum, every twenty-one (21) days regarding any revised schedule.

Stage 5: Determination
After completing a formal investigation, the EIC and Ethics Advisory Panel issue a written determination within ten (10) working days. The determination assigns a rating to the result from the following options.
i) Concern Not Substantiated: There is insufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of misconduct. The worry could reveal an unintentional mistake, a dispute about the science, or miscommunication. If justified, the EIC may provide best-practice guidance to the authors without incurring any adverse editorial consequences.
ii) Poor Practice Identified: Evidence suggests that behaviour falls short of what would be classified as misconduct; methodology is inadequately reported; citation practices are incomplete; or data are cautiously displayed. A formal advisory letter was sent to the authors, asking them to provide corrections and informing them of the standard to which the paper is expected to adhere. There is no sanction.
iii) Minor Misconduct Substantiated:  Evidence of a serious breach of published ethics, non-disclosure or under-reporting of minor conflicts of interest, inadequate self-plagiarism disclosure or minor duplicate submission. These may lead to a formal written warning, an editing notice (with a time-limited publishing ban), and/or registration for publication limitations.
iv) Serious Misconduct Substantiated: Evidence of fabrication, falsification, large-scale plagiarism (usually prepared by a ghostwriter), fake peer review, deliberate duplicate publication or gross authorship fraud. The list of sanctions, which includes retraction of published articles, lifetime bans on submission, and flagging the case to the institution/silencing the case with COPE, can be considered. The determination is confirmed in writing to the complainant and respondent within five (5) working days of its finalisation. The notification includes: the type of the outcome; the specific findings of fact from which such understanding is effective; sanction(s), if any; the right to appeal under Section 9; and the timeframe for filing an appeal.

Stage 6: Action, Institutional Notification, and Follow-Up
i) In cases of misconduct where this has been established at the level of 'Minor' or 'Serious', the EIC imposes appropriate sanctions (Section 8) within fifteen (15) working days of determination. The Misconduct Register records the date on which all actions have been implemented.
ii) For cases where institutional notification is required (see Section 8), the EIC submits a formal written notification to the respondent's associated RIO, which includes: a factual summary of the investigation; a copy of the determination; and a description of the sanctions imposed by UMPSA Press. The notice also asks that the institution inform the UMPSA Press of the results of any concurrent institutional inquiry promptly for inclusion in the Misconduct Register.
iii) When the EIC requires a post-publication correction, retraction or Expression of Concern, this is coordinated with UMPSA Press production staff to ensure that: 1) the notice is published within fifteen (15) working days of the determination; 2) it receives a DOI and is indexed in all databases where the original article appears and 3) it is bidirectionally linked to the original article in any format.
iv) UMPSA Press closes the case in the Misconduct Register once: (a) all sanctions have been confirmed to be executed; (b) any institutional investigation has concluded (if necessary); (c) all necessary corrections or retractions are published and indexed where appropriate immediately in conjunction with Steps 1-3 thereafter. The case is marked closed with the date and a summary of how it was resolved.

SECTION 6: PRE-PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT
Pre-publication misconduct concerns those arising from manuscripts submitted to or under active review at IJSECS that have not yet been published. The procedures below are scenario-specific supplements to the general six-stage framework in Section 5 and reference the applicable COPE flowchart for each scenario.

6.1 Plagiarism and Text Similarity
i) At the point of submission, before the desk review, every manuscript is screened for text similarity and AI-generated content using Turnitin. The handling editor analyses the similarity report before making any editorial decision.
ii) These thresholds define the editorial action: (i) Overall similarity index ≤ 20% and no single source 3%: No editorial action for reasons of similarity; the editor passes it to evaluate the manuscript on its merits. (ii) Total similarity index 20–35% or single source 3–7%: matched sources reviewed manually by the EIC to assess whether the similarity reflects text that is plagiarised, correctly cited, or standardised language. Once authors submit, they may not receive a decision right away, as editors may request additional information before making a decision. (iii) Overall similarity index value or one source > 35% or single source > 7%: rejected at desk unless manually checked and the EIC finds a good reason (e.g., heavily quoted regulatory standard that cannot be paraphrased). It is provided with all the data and a factual explanation of why the author is notified.
iii) In the event that the similarity analysis suggests potential plagiarism from an external source, the Editor-in-Chief adheres to the flowchart provided by COPE titled "What to do if a reviewer or editor suspects a submitted manuscript is plagiarised." When the similarity primarily arises from the authors' previous work, the EIC consults the COPE flowchart titled "What to do if suspect redundant/duplicate submission or publication."
iv) If plagiarism is suspected but the evidence is not compelling, the manuscript is subject to limited peer review, and reviewers are informed of the concern, which helps guide the EIC's decision. This is in line with COPE guidance, which states that plagiarism detection without consultation between editors should not occur in complex cases.

6.2 Suspected Data Fabrication or Falsification
i) When a reviewer, editor or third party has evidence of suspected fabricated or falsified data, figures and/or results reported in a manuscript under consideration, the EIC suspends review and notifies the Ethics Advisory Panel without delay. Stage 3 is bypassed due to the urgency, and the concern is raised to Stage 4 of the investigation framework.
ii) The EIC requests the following from the corresponding author within fourteen (14) days: original raw data files in their native format; laboratory notebooks, instrument logs, and field records; analysis scripts and outputs; and any other relevant primary research records related to the concern. The request is framed in neutral language, avoiding any implication of blame.
iii) The issue is resolved, and the review continues as if the requested records were provided and conform to the report in the manuscript. The EIC can acknowledge receipt of the records under Stage 3. If the records are inconsistent with the manuscript or not provided by the authors within the specified timeframe, the EIC can proceed with a full investigation through Stage 4 and decide whether an institutional notification is warranted.
iv) The respective COPE flowchart is ‘Action to take if suspect fabricated data in a submitted manuscript’. An independent review may also be commissioned where the data reveal patterns consistent with fabrication.

6.3 Duplicate and Redundant Submission
i) Where a reviewer or editor identifies a possible duplicate submission, through personal knowledge, database search, or a complainant's report, the EIC confirms the submission date and status of both manuscripts before contacting either the journal or the author.
ii) If duplicate submission is confirmed, the EIC rejects the manuscript from IJSECS and notifies the corresponding author, copying the ethics@umpsa.edu.my address. The EIC also contacts the editor of the other journal to exchange information and ensure a consistent response, following the COPE flowchart: 'What to do if suspect redundant/duplicate submission'.
iii) The EIC determines if the duplicate submission was: (i) incidental (e.g., second submission was by error); (ii) in good faith, as a consequence of unreasonably long editorial silence at the first journal (without formal retraction); or (iii) intentional. The evaluation determines the appropriate penalty level.
iv) Concerns regarding redundant publication (when overlapping material has been published rather than when it had been submitted for simultaneous consideration) are considered post-publication misconduct and adjudicated under Section 7.

6.4 Authorship Disputes Before Publication
i) In the case of an authorship dispute raised, before publication, by a co-author listed in a manuscript, an individual alleging omission from the list of authors, an institution or a third party, the EIC immediately suspends all editorial activity on the manuscript and emails full details regarding the authorship that were listed as current co-authors at that stage within fourteen (14) days.
ii) If all listed authors confirm the current authorship list and deny any irregularity, and the dispute involves a third-party claim of omission without documentary evidence, the EIC may proceed with the review based on the authors' collective signed declaration.
iii) If one or more listed authors contest the authorship list, or if a third party provides documentary evidence of a credible claim, the EIC suspends the manuscript indefinitely and requests that the parties seek resolution through their institutional channels within sixty (60) days, following the COPE flowchart: 'What to do if authorship is disputed: before publication'.
iv) UMPSA Press does not adjudicate authorship disputes that are essentially internal institutional or collegial disagreements. The journal's role is to ensure that a valid, undisputed authorship list is in place before publication.

6.5 Fake Peer Review
i) UMPSA Press employs the following verification measures to reduce the risk of fake peer review: cross-checking reviewer email addresses against verified institutional staff directories before inviting reviews; monitoring reviewer acceptance and submission patterns for anomalies (e.g., implausibly rapid acceptance and submission of a positive review); comparing the linguistic style of review reports with the manuscript text where reviewer identity is suspected; and verifying the publication records of proposed reviewers before assignment.
ii) When fake peer review is suspected during the editorial process, the EIC immediately removes the suspected reviewer and appoints a replacement, without notifying the authors of the reason for the change. The EIC initiates a Stage 4 investigation of the reviewer, following the COPE flowchart: 'What to do if suspect a reviewer has been compromised'.
iii) If fake peer review is confirmed, meaning the reviewer was not an independent, qualified expert, the entire review cycle is invalidated. The manuscript is returned to the authors for an explanation, and if they are implicated, it is rejected. A permanent ban on the reviewer (and, if implicated, on the authors) is imposed.

6.6 Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest
i) Where an undisclosed conflict of interest is identified in a submitted manuscript, through editorial review, a reviewer's report, or a third-party concern, the EIC contacts the corresponding author in writing, requesting a completed conflict-of-interest declaration form within fourteen (14) days and an explanation of why the conflict was not disclosed at the initial submission.
ii) The editorial decision on the manuscript is informed by the nature and degree of the conflict; whether the conflict could have influenced the research design, conduct, analysis, or reporting; and the plausibility of the authors' explanation for non-disclosure.
iii) Where the undisclosed conflict is judged to be potentially material to the findings, the EIC may request independent re-analysis of the data by a party without the conflict or may reject the manuscript on grounds of undisclosed bias.

6.7 Artificial Intelligence Content Similarity Criteria
This subsection specifies the operational standards editors must use when applying artificial intelligence content similarity assessments to manuscripts submitted to and published by the IJSECS. These standards align with the COPE position statements on Authorship and AI Tools and Generative AI in Scholarly Publications, as well as journal evaluation guidelines for transparent AI policies. Editors who do not follow these standards consistently, whether during pre-publication screening or in addressing post-publication concerns, commit EiC misconduct under Section 6.2.

The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, along with the Author Guidelines, mandates that authors disclose any significant use of AI in their manuscripts. However, AI-Content Similarity assessment is a separate process from disclosure. Disclosure is the author's declaration to the editor about AI use. At the same time, AI-Content Similarity is a technical screening tool that compares the declared AI use with the AI-like features of the submitted text. This helps identify any undisclosed AI involvement that authors have not reported.

6.8 Pre-Publication Threshold Framework
Editors use the AI-Content Similarity (AICS) threshold framework not only when manuscripts are first submitted, but also for final revisions. These thresholds inform the procedural response, but they do not confirm misconduct. Each level is associated with a specific type of editor action, and the editor's ongoing recorded response can be tracked.
Tier 1: Low Concern (AICS < 20%). Requires no action beyond the standard process. The manuscript goes into peer review in the usual way. Also, the AICS value, tools used and screening date are recorded in a manuscript file for audit purposes.
Tier 2: Moderate Concern (20–30% AICS). The editor requests clarification from the author regarding self-declared AI use and confirmation of authorship in accordance with the ICMJE four-criterion test. A supplementary disclosure statement by the author. At this point, the manuscript can proceed to peer review, with a note in the editor's file indicating the AICS result, and reviewers are given the AICS result.
Tier 3: High Concern (AICS 30–50%): The manuscript is promptly paused. The editor asks the corresponding author within fourteen calendar days to detail exactly which AI tools were used, what prompts were provided to those tools, where in the paper assistance was sought from these tools, and what human checks have been performed on text generated with the assistance of AI. The editor checks if the explanation is sufficient. At this point, the manuscript may be declined; if it survives scrutiny, it will also be published with complete transparency regarding the use of AI.
Tier 4: Critical Concern (AICS > 50%): The manuscript is rejected for final acceptance, and the Ethics Advisory Panel shall discuss the case in accordance with Section 4 of this Policy. A COPE notification may also be issued, and the authors' institutions are notified via the institutional Research Integrity Officer. As the Ethics Panel undertakes its review, authors of the work may be added to UMPSA Press's restricted-submissions list.

Editors log AICS value, which tools were used, what procedural tier was invoked, the response and any author communications in the manuscript record for each submission. Details of these are retained in the editorial file and available for inspection by the Ethics Advisory Panel. If not documented, or if the framework is implemented inconsistently or selectively based on an author's identity or affiliation, this approach would be considered editor misconduct (Section 6.2).

SECTION 7: POST-PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT
Post-publication misconduct refers to concerns about research or publishing integrity identified after a work has been formally published. UMPSA Press treats post-publication concerns with the same procedural rigour as pre-publication concerns. There is no statute of limitations.

7.1 Expression of Concern
i) An Expression of Concern (EoC) is an interim protective measure. It is not a finding of misconduct. UMPSA Press publishes an EoC when at least one of the following conditions is met: (a) an investigation is underway and the EIC judges that readers should be alerted to a potential integrity concern before the investigation is concluded; (b) an institutional investigation has been initiated but has not yet produced an outcome; (c) the EIC has received reliable information suggesting unreliable data or conclusions but has been unable to verify or refute the information within a reasonable period; or (d) a respondent or their institution is uncooperative with the investigation in a manner that prevents its timely conclusion.
ii) The EoC notice includes the title, authors, journal, DOI and publication date of the article; a brief typically factual account of the nature of the concern (for example 'Concerns have been raised regarding reliability of data reported); an indication that an investigation is being conducted; and a note that the EoC will be updated at some point later when either consensus or individual decisions may have been reached.
iii) The EoC is assigned its own DOI, published open access, and linked bidirectionally to the original article in all formats. The EoC is removed and replaced by a correction or retraction notice upon conclusion of the investigation, or by a 'Concern Resolved' notice if the investigation clears the article.

7.2 Correction (Erratum / Corrigendum)
i) A correction is issued when a published article contains an error that does not invalidate the main findings or conclusions but must be corrected for the accuracy and completeness of the scholarly record. Corrections are categorised as:
ii) An erratum is an error that was introduced during production (typesetting, formatting, copyediting, and data entry by UMPSA Press staff or the Editor-in-Chief of the journal) and issued by the publisher. The notice identifies the error, its location, and the correction.
iii) A corrigendum is an error introduced by the authors in the submitted manuscript, issued with the journal's agreement. The notice identifies the error, its source, and the correction. Where the error may have affected the conclusions, the corrigendum explicitly addresses the impact on the findings.
iv) An author who discovers an error in their published work must notify the EIC in writing within a reasonable period of discovering the error, at a maximum of thirty (30) days. Delayed reporting of a known error, without justification, is itself recorded as a breach of the Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
v) All correction notices are published under an open access CC-BY-NC 4.0 licence; assigned a unique DOI; added to the article's metadata in CrossRef and all other databases where the article is indexed; and retained permanently as part of the published record. The original article is updated with a prominent correction notice linking to the corrigendum or erratum.

7.3 Retraction
i) A retraction is issued when the findings or conclusions of a published article are so seriously flawed, due to honest error or deliberate misconduct, that the work can no longer be considered reliable and should not be cited as a valid contribution to the literature. A retraction is not a punishment; it is a correction of the scholarly record.
ii) The decision to retract is made by the EIC, with the agreement of the Ethics Advisory Panel, following completion of the investigation under Section 5 or following receipt of a request from the authors.
iii) A retraction is appropriate if any of the following errors exists, (a) dishonest practices or other misleading acts invalidate the key conclusions of the work; (b) the work has already been published in substantially identical form elsewhere without proper cross-referencing; (c) research on humans or animals has been carried out without ethics approval and this cannot be rectified retrospectively;(d) data were used without permission and formal objection by copyright holder; and/or (e) privacy rights of a participant are violated in ways that cannot be rectified by correction.
iv) The retraction notice must adhere to the COPE Retraction Guidelines and must include the title, full author list, journal, volume/issue/page range/DOI/original publication date of the article being retracted; a clear factual statement of the reason(s) for retraction; an indication that regarding whether it can be established from the evidence available if this represents honest error or deliberate misconduct; as well as name and title of EIC who authorised the retraction; date of decision to retract; and where appropriate for each specific finding or conclusion that has been found with indicating which findings or conclusions can no longer be relied upon.
v) The corresponding author receives the retraction notice for acknowledgement before publication. Where all authors agree to retract, the notice is co-signed by the authors and the EIC. If the authors do not approve of a retraction that has been deemed necessary by the EIC and Ethics Advisory Panel, the retraction proceeds as a publisher-initiated retraction. As such, the notice documents both that the authors were not in consensus regarding retraction and the rationale used by an EIC to support this decision.
vi) The original article is retained on the journal website and in all databases with a prominent, immediately visible retraction watermark on every page. The article's metadata in CrossRef and all other databases where it is indexed is updated with the retracted status, the retraction date, and a link to the retraction notice. UMPSA Press confirms the retraction update in each database within thirty (30) days of publication of the retraction notice.
vii) Where an article has been cited in subsequent publications, UMPSA Press notifies the editors of the citing journals of the retraction to enable them to assess whether their articles require correction.

7.4 Post-Publication Authorship Disputes
i) Post-publication authorship disputes are managed in accordance with the COPE flowchart 'What to do if authorship is disputed after publication'. The EIC contacts all named authors and the complainant simultaneously and requests written statements from each party within twenty-one (21) days.
ii) Where a corrigendum adding a previously omitted author is issued, it includes: the name and affiliation of the added author; a description of their contribution (using CRediT taxonomy where possible); and a statement of why the omission occurred. Where the omission was deliberate, it is treated as ghost authorship under Section 3.4, and the full sanction framework applies.
iii) Where a named author seeks removal from a published article, whether due to non-contribution, data concerns, or ethical objections to the research, UMPSA Press follows COPE guidance on author removal, which requires: written consent from all remaining authors; a clear statement of the reason for removal; and, in cases involving ethical objections by the removed author, serious consideration of whether the article itself requires further investigation.

7.5 Editor and Editorial Board Misconduct
i) Where post-publication concerns implicate the conduct of an editor or editorial board member, undisclosed conflicts of interest in the peer review process of a specific article, or editorial manipulation favouring a particular author or institution, the EIC (or, if the EIC is implicated, the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel) initiates a full investigation under Section 5.
ii) All articles handled by an implicated editor during the period of the alleged misconduct may be subject to review for editorial integrity. Where manipulation is confirmed, the articles concerned are re-reviewed by independent editors and may be corrected, retracted, or issued an Expression of Concern.
iii) Confirmed editorial misconduct results in immediate removal of the editor or board member from their role and, where appropriate, notification of their employing institution. UMPSA Press reports confirmed cases of editorial misconduct to COPE.

7.6 Responding to Post-Publication Commentary and Criticism
i) UMPSA Press journals welcome rigorous, evidence-based post-publication critique submitted through the journal's formal correspondence channels. Letters to the Editor, technical comments, and formal peer responses are subject to editorial review for scholarly merit before publication.
ii) Authors of published articles that are the subject of published critique are invited to submit a formal response for simultaneous publication. The EIC has discretion to decline responses that are not substantive, that are personally offensive, or that do not engage with the scientific content of the critique.
iii) Where post-publication commentary raises integrity concerns that go beyond scientific disagreement, the EIC initiates the investigation procedure under Section 5 and may issue an interim Expression of Concern pending the outcome of the investigation.

7.7 Post-Publication AI-Content Similarity Concerns
When concerns about AI Content Similarity are raised regarding a published article, whether by a reader, reviewer, research integrity officer, or indexing organisation, the editor must begin an investigation in accordance with Section 6 of this Policy, using the threshold framework outlined in Section 6.8. This investigation should follow the same strict procedures as those for pre-publication cases, since undisclosed or undetected AI content in a published article has much more serious consequences than if the issue is identified during submission.
Post-publication investigations consider three key points. First, the article's submission-stage AICS, recorded if available, is reviewed alongside the post-publication assessment to spot any inconsistencies or developments. Second, the author's disclosure of AI use in the published article is checked against the AICS findings to verify if it was complete and accurate. Third, if the AICS exceeds the Tier 3 threshold (more than 30 per cent) and this was not detected at submission, the editor must decide if the missed detection was due to insufficient screening at the time of submission, indicating potential misconduct under Failure to Investigate, or if it was due to advancements in AI detection technology since then. In the latter case, no misconduct is assumed, but the article may still need correction.
Substantiated post-publication AI Content Similarity results lead to editorial actions consistent with the AICS tier. A Tier 2 result (AICS 15–30%) requires a corrigendum adding the necessary AI use disclosure. A Tier 3 result (AICS 30–50%) prompts either a corrigendum with a detailed disclosure or, if the AI use significantly compromised the work's integrity, an Expression of Concern while investigations are ongoing; retraction occurs if the author’s response is inadequate or AI use damages the work's credibility. A Tier 4 result (AICS over 50%) necessitates an immediate Expression of Concern, followed by retraction after investigation under Section 11.4 unless the authors provide a satisfactory explanation.
The AI Content Similarity Criteria established in this subsection satisfy the relevant requirements of all governing indexing and ethics bodies. UMPSA Press reports aggregate AICS findings in the Annual Transparency Report. The reported metrics include the number of manuscripts screened, the distribution of AICS across the four tiers, the number of manuscripts rejected at Tier 3 or Tier 4, the number of post-publication AI-related actions taken (corrigenda, Expressions of Concern, retractions), and any systemic trends or detection-tool issues identified during the reporting period.

7.8 Editor Misconduct in AI Content Similarity Application
If an EiC fails to apply the AI-Content Similarity Criteria outlined in this subsection, it constitutes editor misconduct. This misconduct is investigated in accordance with Section 6.8 and sanctioned in accordance with Section 8. The details of how failure modes correspond to misconduct categories are listed as follows.
i) Failure to apply AICS screening at submission for a manuscript that subsequently proves to have substantial AI content is investigated as Failure to Investigate under Section 6.8 (High severity).
ii) Selective application of the threshold framework, applying the criteria strictly to some authors and leniently to others, without scholarly justification grounded in the manuscript content itself, is investigated as Bias or Discrimination under Section 6.8 (High severity).
iii) Misrepresentation of AICS findings in the manuscript record, in communications with authors, or in reports submitted to indexing bodies or the Ethics Advisory Panel is investigated as Misrepresentation under Section 6.8 (High severity).
iv) Failure to investigate post-publication AICS concerns, despite credible evidence brought to the editor's attention, is classified as Failure to Investigate under Section 6.8 (High severity).
v) Uploading confidential manuscripts to public AI detection tools that retain or train on uploaded content is investigated as Improper AI Use or Breach of Confidentiality under Section 6.8 (Moderate-High severity).

SECTION 8: SANCTIONS
Sanctions are imposed following a substantiated finding of misconduct (Stage 5 Determination: 'Minor Misconduct Substantiated' or 'Serious Misconduct Substantiated') and are calibrated to the severity, deliberateness, and impact of the misconduct. Multiple sanctions may be applied concurrently. The sanctions framework below is consistent with COPE Core Practice 10 and with the principle of proportionality.

8.1 Available Sanctions
i) Editorial Rejection: Rejection of the submitted manuscript. Applied in all substantiated pre-publication misconduct cases, regardless of other sanctions.
ii) Retraction of Published Article: Formal retraction following the procedure in Section 7.3. Applied where the published article's conclusions are unreliable because of the misconduct.
iii) Correction (Corrigendum): Issuance of a correction notice. Applied, irrespective of the fact that the misconduct related to an error that did not invalidate the main findings.
iv) Expression of Concern: Issuance of interim notice pending investigation. Employed as a protective measure where the investigation is pending
v) Formal Written Caution:  A formal, written warning to the respondent that indicates misconduct has been found and what level of conduct is expected. Retained in the Misconduct Register. Not available in the public domain unless there is a re-offence by that individual.
vi) Restricted Submission:  A suspension from submitting manuscripts to IJSECS (and, at the discretion of UMPSA Press, to other journals published by UMPSA Press) for a specified period (usually 1–3 years for minor misconduct, 3–5 years for serious misconduct).
vii) Permanent Submission Ban:  A permanent ban on submission to IJSECS (and, at the discretion of UMPSA Press, to other UMPSA Press journals). Reserved for the very worst instances of intentional misconduct (fabrication, falsification, fake peer review, etc., deliberate plagiarism). This is recorded in the Misconduct Register and has now been passed to COPE.
viii) Removal from Reviewer Database: Removing a reviewer from the UMPSA Press reviewer database permanently. Applied when the reviewer has committed peer review misconduct.
ix) Removal from Editorial Role: Remove an editor or board member from their position with immediate effect. This will be applied where misconduct by an editor or board member is proven.
x) Institutional Notification: A formal written notification to the respondent's employing institution's Research Integrity Officer (RIO). Applied in all cases of serious misconduct. The notification includes the investigation findings and sanctions imposed by UMPSA Press.
xi) Funding Body Notification: Notification to the respondent's funding agencies where the misconduct may have implications for the validity of funded research or for the integrity of research reporting to funders.
xii) Reporting to COPE: Formal reporting of the case to COPE for entry in the COPE case consultation database. Applied in all cases of serious misconduct and in all cases of confirmed fake peer review.
xiii) Reporting to Professional Bodies: Where the respondent is a registered professional (e.g., a licensed engineer), notification to the relevant professional regulatory body may be appropriate in cases of the most serious misconduct.

8.2 Misconduct to Sanction Mapping
Low-Severity Misconduct: Minor text similarity or poor referencing is treated as a low-severity matter: the manuscript is returned for revision, and an author guidance letter is issued, with no further sanction. Partial self-plagiarism on a first offence is treated as low to moderate, requiring revision with full disclosure and cross-referencing, together with a formal written caution.
Moderate-Severity Misconduct: A minor, first-offence undisclosed conflict of interest requires disclosure in the published article or revision, a formal written caution, and entry in the register. A duplicate submission that appears to be a good-faith error results in rejection, a formal written caution, and notification to the other journal editor, with no submission ban where the error is genuine.
Moderate-to-High-Severity Misconduct: Substantial or repeated self-plagiarism results in rejection or retraction, publication of a retraction or correction notice, institutional notification, and a submission ban of one to two years. Inadvertent plagiarism from third-party sources results in rejection, a formal written caution, and author education, with no submission ban on a first offence where inadvertence is clearly evidenced.
High-Severity Misconduct: Deliberate plagiarism from third-party sources results in rejection or retraction, publication of a retraction notice, institutional notification, a submission ban of two to five years, and a COPE report. Deliberate duplicate submission attracts the same sanctions, with notification extended to all implicated journal editors. Gift or honorary authorship results in a published correction notice, institutional notification, a formal written caution to all authors, and a potential submission ban of one to three years. Deliberate ghost authorship results in correction or retraction, institutional notification, a submission ban of two to five years, and a COPE report. Substantial undisclosed conflicts of interest that are material to the findings result in rejection or retraction, a correction or retraction notice, notification to both the institution and the funding body, and a submission ban of two to three years. Coercive citation by a reviewer results in permanent removal from the reviewer database, institutional notification, a COPE report, and correction of affected articles where required.
High-to-Critical-Severity Misconduct: Editor misconduct involving bias or conflict of interest results in removal from the editorial role, institutional notification, re-review of articles handled by the editor, and a COPE report. Privacy or data protection violations require immediate rectification or rescission, notification to the relevant supervisory authority, institutional notification, and sanctions commensurate with the severity of the breach.
Critical-Severity Misconduct: Fake peer review results in immediate rejection or retraction, a permanent submission ban, permanent removal from the reviewer list, institutional notification, and a COPE report; criminal referral is considered when fraud is evident. Fabrication or falsification results in immediate rejection or retraction, publication of a retraction notice, a permanent submission ban, notification to both the institution and the funding body, a COPE report, and referral to the relevant professional regulatory body where applicable. AI fabrication involving invented data or non-existent citations is treated as fabrication and is subject to the same sanctions.

8.3 Factors Considered in Calibrating Sanctions
i) Deliberateness is the misconduct which arose from a deflection. It shows negligence, bad practice, or failure to keep up. Significantly more severe sanctions are justified for wilfully dishonest conduct.
ii) Senior researchers with long publication records will be expected to have learned about best practices in publishing ethics. Lower mitigation for experienced researchers than for early-career researchers due to ignorance of the rules.
iii) Scholarly record impact is misconduct that leads to the publication of unreliable results and/or results that may have been relied upon by other researchers, practitioners, or policy-makers. The more significant the impact, the more severe the sanction.
iv) The investigation must be thorough, immediate, and transparent, conducted in cooperation. A mitigating circumstance is cooperating with the investigation. Obstruction, delay, or dishonesty in the investigation is an aggravating factor.
v) A prior finding of misconduct, whether at UMPSA Press or with another journal, is an aggravating factor and should raise the standard sanction.
vi) A significant mitigating factor is intervention in which the respondent takes timely and honest remedial action, such as promptly disclosing a previously undisclosed conflict of interest or voluntarily retracting, before the investigation has begun.

SECTION 9: APPEALS
All parties to a misconduct investigation, complainants and respondents alike, may appeal the finding. Independence, fairness and finality guide the appeals process. Appeals are decided by a panel of jurists who have no prior involvement in the case. The appeals mechanism of UMPSA Press is in accordance with COPE Core Practice (Complaints and Appeals).
9.1 Grounds for Appeal
An appeal will be considered only if one or more of the following substantive grounds have been established:
i) Procedural error means a significant failure to follow the investigation procedure set out in this Policy.
ii) New evidence is material that was not available at the time and that, in reasonable probability, may have affected its determination.
iii) Error of fact is a conclusion that relies on the finding of fact that can be truthfully said to be false;
iv) The disproportionate sanction imposed by the investigation is plainly disproportionate to the facts proven, considering the proscribed matters under Section 8.3.
The simple fact that they disagree with the merits of a determination reached based on the evidence properly before it is not an appealable ground and will not be accepted.

9.2 Appeals Procedure
Step 1: Notice of Appeal
Complainant should submit a written notice of appeal through electronic mail to the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel at ethics@umpsa.edu.my within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of notification from UMPSA. The notice will identify each appeal ground from the list in Section 9.1 with specificity; describe with particularity how the evidence or argument supports that ground; and attach any new evidence upon which it is relying. Late notices of appeal will be accepted only upon exceptional written justification given at the time of submission.
Step 2: Admissibility Review
The notice is reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Panel to determine whether it meets the criteria for an appeal: a proper ground of appeal with grounds in support, within ten (10) working days. Acknowledgement of a general disagreement with the outcome, without identifying as providing in detail an error relating to procedure, new evidence, factual errors or disproportional sanction, is inadmissible. The complainant is requested to provide reasons for the decision on admissibility.
Step 3: Panel Composition and Review
An Appeal Panel of three members from the Ethics Advisory Panel (none of whom were involved in the original investigation) hears an admissible appeal. The Appeal Panel reviews, including all relevant documentation, are maintained in the case file, the investigation record, the original determination, the Notice of appeal and supporting materials. The panel has the discretion of demanding further written submissions from any party. An oral hearing is only held if the Panel believes it is strictly necessary due to the nature of the factual dispute.
Step 4: Appeal Determination
A written determination is issued by the Appeal Panel. The panel may confirm both the original determination and sanction; modify the sanction, substitute a different determination on the same facts where a factual error is established; or remit the case for further investigation, where it identifies a significant procedural error. Decisions by the Appeal Panel are final and binding within UMPSA Press.
Step 5: External Escalation to COPE
If either party is dissatisfied with the application of the appeals procedure, it may end up going to COPE. COPE does not decide on individual case merits but will examine whether the journal's procedures were appropriate. UMPSA Press will act in good faith to implement any course of action recommended by COPE.
SUSPENSION OF SANCTIONS: A notice of appeal does not, without a decision from the appeals court, suspend the effect of sanctions. However, in any case where the Appeal Panel finds at the admissibility stage that there is an arguable procedural issue raised by the appeal, it can order a stay of certain sanctions pending its decision. A suspension of sanctions is not a favourable finding on the appeal.

SECTION 10: CONFIDENTIALITY, PROTECTION, AND DATA RETENTION
10.1 Confidentiality During Investigation
i) All information regarding a misconduct investigation, including the identities of all parties (the complainant, respondent and any independent expert consultants retained under a confidentiality undertaking), as well as the particulars of the allegation, evidence relevant to it or to either party, investigation procedures and findings, is strictly confidential.
ii) No disclosure of the existence or substance of an active investigation is made to third parties by UMPSA Press, except: (a) where investigations necessitate contact with another journal (e.g., well founded allegations of duplicate submission) and only to the minimum extent necessary; (b) where there is a need for institutional notification (see Stage 6), once the respondent has been informed unless notifying beforehand would pose a risk that evidence might be destroyed; as required by applicable law or court order; and (d) when a notice must be published in accordance with an interim measure EoC, in which case it must not have any informative bias.
iii) All individuals who receive confidential investigative information are subject to confidentiality obligations no less stringent than those set forth in this Section. Only independent expert consultants who sign a confidentiality undertaking will be permitted access to any case materials.

10.2 Protection
i) The following protections apply unconditionally to all individuals who raise concerns in good faith, provide information during an investigation, participate as witnesses, or exercise their rights under the appeals procedure:
ii) No manuscript submitted by a good-faith complainant shall be rejected or subjected to additional scrutiny for reasons connected to their prior complaint. The EIC ensures that manuscripts from complainants are assigned to editors who are unaware of the complaint.
iii) Protection from removal from reviewer or editorial board roles: no good-faith complainant shall be removed from their role as a reviewer or board member on grounds connected to their complaint, without an independent, documented justification that makes no reference to the complaint.
iv) When the EIC has reason to believe that a reviewer's negative report may have been motivated by awareness of the complainant's identity, the EIC seeks a supplementary review from an independent reviewer before making an editorial decision.
v) The identity of a good-faith complainant is not disclosed in any published notice (correction, retraction, EoC), in any communication with the respondent, or in any public statement by UMPSA Press, without the complainant's express written consent.
vi) UMPSA Press conducts an annual review of editorial data to identify any pattern of adverse treatment of individuals connected to misconduct complaints. Any identified pattern is investigated under the editor misconduct procedures in Section 7.5.

10.3 Data Retention and Security
i) All misconduct investigation records are retained in the Confidential Misconduct Register for a minimum of ten (10) years from the date the case is closed. Records are stored in an access-controlled, password-protected database accessible only to the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel and authorised staff.
ii) Misconduct investigation records include: all correspondence with complainants, respondents, and institutions; similarity reports and expert analysis; investigation notes and panel deliberations; the formal determination; and evidence of all corrective actions taken.
iii) If retracted articles generate legal proceedings, UMPSA Press retains all relevant records for the duration of the proceedings and for at least seven (7) years thereafter.

SECTION 11: TRANSPARENCY REPORTING, AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
11.1 Confidential Misconduct Register
• UMPSA Press maintains a Confidential Misconduct Register that records all misconduct concerns received regarding the IJSECS. The Register is the primary institutional record of UMPSA Press's misconduct handling activity and is reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Panel at each scheduled meeting.
• Each case entry in the Register records: case reference number; journal name; manuscript ID or article DOI; date concern received; category of alleged misconduct; case handler; dates of each stage completion; names of all parties (confidential); determination outcome; sanctions imposed; corrective actions taken; date case closed; and outcome of any appeal.

11.2 Annual Transparency Report
UMPSA Press publishes an Annual Transparency Report for the IJSECS. The report is published each year and covers the preceding calendar year. It is publicly accessible on the UMPSA Press and IJSECS websites. The report meets COPE's transparency requirements and supports continued compliance with the indexing requirements. The report includes the following anonymised data:
i) Total number of misconduct concerns received by IJSECS.
ii) Total number of concerns assessed as not within scope or not credible (Stage 2 outcome: No Action).
iii) Total number of formal investigations initiated, completed, and pending at year-end.
iv) Breakdown of completed investigations by misconduct category (using the categories in Section 3).
v) Breakdown of Stage 5 determination outcomes: Not Substantiated; Poor Practice; Minor Misconduct; Serious Misconduct.
vi) Total number and type of sanctions imposed, broken down by category.
vii) Total number of corrections (errata and corrigenda), retractions, and Expressions of Concern published.
viii) Total number of institutional notifications sent.
ix) Total number of cases reported to COPE.
x) Total number of appeals received and their outcomes (upheld, modified, dismissed).
xi) Summary of any systemic trends identified and corrective measures implemented.

11.3 Staff Training and Competency
i) The UMPSA Press editorial staff and the journal editors are trained in publication ethics and the handling of misconduct at the time of their appointment. Training includes completing the COPE online training modules (or equivalent), reviewing this Policy and the companion Ethics and Malpractice Statement, and receiving a briefing from the UMPSA press coordinator on the practical implementation of the investigation procedure.
ii) A refresher training is conducted no less frequently than once every two years or if this Policy is materially amended. We keep training records for every member of the editorial staff.
iii) The Ethics Advisory Panel meets twice a year operationally to evaluate the implementation of this Policy, review current casework in anonymised form, and identify systemic themes for potential policy enhancements. Minutes of panel meetings are held in the Misconduct Register.

11.4 Policy Review Mechanism
i) This Policy is formally reviewed biennially by the UMPSA Press Ethics Advisory Panel, with advice from journal editors and in light of any updates from COPE or standard indexing requirements.
ii) Unscheduled reviews are triggered when: an important new release of COPE Core Practices or flow charts has been published; a change in standard indexing evaluation criteria changes whether the Policy is compliant; a systemic trend identified by the Annual Transparency Report demonstrates that there is a gap in the policy; or other legal or regulatory developments necessitate adjustment to policy.
iii) All substantive revisions are communicated to journal editors, editorial board members, and authors through the journal website. The version number and effective date of the current Policy are displayed prominently on the IJSECS website.

This Misconduct Handling Policy complements the UMPSA Press Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Collectively, these documents constitute the comprehensive ethics governance framework for the IJSECS. Both individually and jointly, they fulfil the misconduct-handling requirements outlined by the COPE Core Practices. UMPSA Press regards these documents as dynamic instruments, subject to periodic review and updates in accordance with evolving international best practices.

Updated: 1 January 2026