Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles published in scientific journals, editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
 
In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.
 
The first step is to determine the allegation's validity and assess whether it aligns with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.
 
If scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities are possible, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all co-authors, is asked to provide a detailed response. After we receive and evaluate the response, we may seek additional review and expert involvement (such as statistical reviewers). For cases in which misconduct is unlikely, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as electronic letters to the Editor and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient.
 
Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, CDK journal will continue to fulfill its responsibilities for ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
 
Reporting of Concerns
Concerns regarding potential research misconduct should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief via official journal communication channels (email: cdk@kalbe.co.id). The complainant must clearly describe the alleged misconduct and provide supporting evidence where possible. The journal will consider anonymous complaints if sufficient evidence is presented.
 
Investigation Process
All allegations are handled confidentially, impartially, and with due process. The journal will proceed with fairness and respect for all parties involved.
  1. Initial Assessment
    The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the allegation has sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
  2. Communication with Authors
    If warranted, the corresponding author(s) will be contacted and asked to provide a detailed explanation, supporting documentation, and any relevant data within a specified timeframe.
  3. Editorial Review
    The Editor-in-Chief may consult Section Editors, Associate Editors, Advisory Editors, or independent experts to assist in evaluating the allegation.

  4. In cases involving serious or complex allegations (e.g., fabrication, falsification, or unethical research), the journal may refer the matter to the relevant author’s institution or appropriate regulatory authority for formal investigation.

Outcomes
The course of action depends on the findings of the investigation:
  • If misconduct is confirmed in a published article:
    The journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the severity and impact on the validity of the findings.
  • If misconduct is identified during peer review:
    The manuscript may be rejected, and the authors’ institutions may be notified when appropriate.
  • If the authors provide a satisfactory explanation:
    The review or publication process may proceed, potentially with necessary revisions.
  • If authors fail to respond within the stipulated timeframe or provide an unsatisfactory explanation:
    The manuscript may be rejected, or the published article may be retracted. Institutional authorities may be informed where appropriate.

The complainant will be notified once the matter has been resolved, provided contact details are available.