Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy

HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT POLICY

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)

ISSN: 2822-4841 | DOI Prefix: 10.29329

Quick Summary

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. The journal follows a fair, confidential, and evidence-based process aligned with COPE best practices — including the use of COPE flowcharts — to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and the rights of all parties.

1) Scope: What We Consider Misconduct

Misconduct and serious ethical concerns may include (but are not limited to):

Plagiarism and unacceptable text recycling (self-plagiarism)
Data fabrication or data falsification
Image manipulation or selective reporting
Duplicate/redundant publication and undisclosed overlapping submissions
Authorship misconduct (guest/gift authorship, ghost authorship, undisclosed contributors, improper author changes)
Undeclared conflicts of interest
Missing/invalid ethics approval or informed consent where required
Peer review manipulation (e.g., fake reviewer identities/emails, compromised review reports)
Citation manipulation (coercive or irrelevant citation practices)
Undisclosed use of generative AI tools in manuscript preparation, data analysis, or the peer review process (see Generative AI Policy)

2) How to Report a Concern

Concerns about a manuscript (under review) or a published article may be reported by anyone — including authors, reviewers, readers, editors, or members of the public — and should be sent to: info@pedagogicalperspective.com

Please include (where possible):

Article/manuscript title and URL (or submission ID)
A clear description of the concern
Supporting evidence (e.g., sources, similarity excerpts, figures, documentation)

Anonymous reports may be considered if they include verifiable evidence; however, providing contact details helps the journal investigate efficiently and communicate outcomes.

3) Initial Assessment (Triage)

Upon receiving a report, PedPer will:

Acknowledge receipt within 5 business days (where contact details are available)
Conduct an initial assessment of credibility and relevance
Secure records (submission files, revision history, peer review logs, correspondence)
Decide whether immediate steps are required (e.g., pause review, request clarification, restrict access to files)

The editorial office aims to complete the initial assessment within two weeks of receiving the report.

4) Investigation Process

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the allegation, PedPer may:

Request a written explanation and supporting documentation from the authors (with a response deadline of 15 business days)
Conduct a detailed review of the manuscript, published article, submission records, and similarity reports
Consult independent experts, where appropriate
Contact the authors’ institution(s), ethics committee, or funder(s) for serious allegations (e.g., fabrication/falsification)
Cooperate with institutional investigations and await outcomes when necessary

PedPer aims to act proportionately, focusing on evidence and due process, and follows COPE flowcharts as a procedural reference throughout the investigation.

Non-response by authors

If the authors do not respond within the specified deadline (or any agreed extension), the Editor-in-Chief may proceed to a decision based on the available evidence. Lack of response does not prevent the journal from taking editorial action, including rejection (pre-publication) or retraction (post-publication) if the evidence warrants it.

5) Confidentiality and Fair Process

Allegations are handled confidentially and shared only on a need-to-know basis.
The journal does not normally disclose complainant identities to authors without consent (unless legally required).
Authors are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns and provide evidence before a final decision is made.
Retaliatory or abusive communications from any party are not tolerated and may result in the termination of correspondence.
All parties involved in the investigation are expected to act in good faith.

6) Possible Outcomes (Manuscripts Under Review)

For manuscripts under review, PedPer may:

Take no action (if concerns are unfounded or insufficient evidence is provided)
Request clarification, corrections, or additional documentation
Require ethics approval/consent documentation (where applicable)
Reject the manuscript on ethical grounds
Impose restrictions (e.g., temporary submission limitations) in serious or repeated cases
Refer the matter to the authors’ institution(s) for further investigation

7) Possible Outcomes (Published Articles)

For published articles, PedPer may:

Correction (erratum/corrigendum) — for errors that affect the interpretation or attribution of the work but do not invalidate the overall findings
Expression of Concern — when evidence of misconduct is inconclusive but sufficiently serious to alert readers
Retraction — when the findings are unreliable due to confirmed misconduct (e.g., fabrication, plagiarism) or honest error of a magnitude that invalidates the conclusions
Notify institutions and/or funders (where appropriate)

Post-publication actions are handled according to PedPer’s Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy and COPE Retraction Guidelines. Retracted articles remain in the scholarly record with a clearly linked retraction notice.

8) Conflicts of Interest (Editorial Handling)

If an allegation involves an editor, guest editor, or reviewer — or if there is any editorial conflict of interest — the case will be managed by an independent editor designated by the Editor-in-Chief (or by the publisher where required). The conflicted party must be excluded from all decisions related to the case. See the Conflicts of Interest (COI) Statement for details.

9) Escalation

If the editorial office is unable to resolve a case through its internal investigation, or if the allegation involves the Editor-in-Chief directly, PedPer may:

Seek guidance from COPE (if the journal is a member or follows COPE procedures)
Refer the matter to the authors’ affiliated institution(s) for formal investigation
Consult with external experts or legal advisers as appropriate
Involve the publisher in the decision-making process

The goal is to ensure that all allegations are resolved fairly and thoroughly, even in cases where internal resources are insufficient.

10) Timeline Targets

PedPer aims to handle allegations within the following target timeframes:

Stage	Target Duration
Acknowledgment of report	≤ 5 business days
Initial assessment (triage)	≤ 2 weeks
Author response deadline	15 business days
Investigation and decision (straightforward cases)	≤ 8 weeks
Investigation and decision (complex cases / institutional referral)	May take longer; parties will be kept informed

Note: These timelines are targets. Complex cases — particularly those requiring institutional cooperation or external expert consultation — may take longer. All parties will be kept informed of progress.

11) Record-Keeping

PedPer retains documentation of:

Allegations and evidence received
Editorial correspondence and decisions
Investigation steps and outcomes

Records are maintained to ensure accountability, consistency, auditability, and compliance with COPE standards. Records are stored securely and shared only on a need-to-know basis.

Related Policies