Allegations of research misconduct policy

At Genesis Publishing Consortium Limited, we place the highest value on the integrity of research and scholarly publishing. Our allegations of research misconduct policy is designed to address allegations with diligence, sensitivity, and adherence to ethical standards, following the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy outlines the step-by-step process through which GPCL will handle allegations of research misconduct:

Reporting research misconduct

• Allegations of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under the peer-review process.
• We encourage individuals to submit complaints through the contact form on our website. This platform provides an accessible and secure means for reporting concerns.

Complainant responsibility

It is essential for the complainant to articulate the nature of the misconduct clearly. Specific details, such as highlighted instances of plagiarism or other forms of misconduct, should be included. References to the original and suspected articles are also required.

Confidentiality and sensitivity

The editorial office is committed to maintaining the confidentiality and sensitivity of all allegations. We understand the importance of handling these matters discreetly to protect the interests of all parties involved.

Initial investigation

Upon receiving a complaint, the editorial office will initiate a thorough investigation. This process involves contacting the editor of the journal and reaching out to the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article.

Author response

The corresponding author(s) will be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. They are encouraged to provide factual statements and present any available evidence to support their case.

Acceptance of misconduct

If the author(s) acknowledges the misconduct complaint, the editorial office will take appropriate actions based on the circumstances:

• If the article has been published, corrective measures such as an erratum or retraction may be deemed necessary. In cases of disagreement over wording, these will be addressed.
• If misconduct is identified during the review process, it may continue with the author(s) making required modifications.

Nonresponse or unsatisfactory explanation

• In instances where the author(s) fail to respond within the stipulated time or provide an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may face permanent retraction or rejection.
• Prior to a decision, confirmation will be sought from experts of the relevant institution or other authorities, as necessary.

Resolution and Communication

Once the issue is resolved, the complainant will be informed of the outcome. This transparent communication ensures accountability and fosters trust in our commitment to research integrity.

Compliance with COPE guidelines

Throughout the process, GPCL will strictly adhere to the guidelines outlined by COPE. This commitment ensures that the handling of allegations is fair, transparent, and aligns with the highest ethical standards in research publication.

Continuous review

GPCL is dedicated to regularly reviewing and updating this policy to stay aligned with evolving industry standards and best practices in research integrity.