Allegations of Research Misconduct
Progressive Physics Journal (PPJ) takes every credible allegation of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether it concerns a manuscript under review or an article already published. Allegations are handled confidentially, fairly, and in accordance with the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
What Counts as Misconduct
Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
• Fabrication — reporting data, measurements, or simulation results that were never obtained.
• Falsification — manipulating instruments, samples, procedures, or data, or selectively omitting results, so that the research is not accurately represented. In physics this includes altering spectra, diffraction patterns (XRD), micrographs (SEM/TEM), dose or radiation readings, geophysical sections, or simulation outputs beyond acceptable adjustments that apply to the whole image or dataset.
• Plagiarism — using another person's ideas, text, data, figures, or code without proper credit, including self-plagiarism (text recycling) and translation plagiarism.
• Duplicate or redundant publication — publishing the same results in more than one journal or conference without disclosure.
• Authorship misconduct — gift, ghost, guest, or purchased authorship.
• Citation manipulation — excessive self-citation or coerced citation.
• Peer-review manipulation — fake reviewer identities, or reviewers misusing confidential manuscripts.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest, ethical violations involving human participants (for example, patient data in medical physics), or undisclosed use of generative AI contrary to the PPJ Policy on the Use of AI.
• Paper-mill activity — manuscripts produced or sold by third parties.
Honest errors and genuine differences of scientific interpretation are not misconduct; they are handled through post-publication discussion or correction.
How to Report a Concern
Anyone — an author, reviewer, editor, reader, or institution — may report a concern by email to the Editor-in-Chief at ppj@fmipa.unmul.ac.id. A report should identify the manuscript or article (title and DOI), describe the concern precisely (pointing to specific text, figures, tables, or data), and include any supporting evidence. Reports may be made anonymously if they contain sufficient evidence to be assessed; the identity of a named whistleblower will be kept confidential.
How Allegations Are Handled
1. Acknowledgment. The editorial office acknowledges the report within 7 working days.
2. Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, together with at least one member of the editorial board with no conflict of interest, decides whether the allegation is specific, supported by evidence, and within the definition of misconduct. Unfounded allegations are closed.
3. Request for explanation. If there is a case to answer, the corresponding author is informed of the concern and asked to respond on behalf of all authors within 30 days. The journal may request raw data, original images, instrument output files, simulation input and code, or ethics approval documents.
4. Suspension. For manuscripts under review, the editorial process is suspended until the matter is resolved.
5. Expert opinion. Where needed, independent experts may be asked to assess the evidence.
6. Referral to the institution. If the response is unsatisfactory, or the allegation is serious, PPJ will refer the case to the authors' institution, employer, or funding body, which is responsible for any formal investigation. PPJ does not itself investigate the conduct of individuals beyond what concerns the publication.
7. Decision. The journal then decides on the appropriate action.
Possible Outcomes
• no action, if misconduct is not found;
• a request for clarification or a correction, if the problem is minor and the conclusions remain valid;
• rejection of a manuscript under review;
• an expression of concern, while an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive;
• retraction of a published article;
• notification of the authors' institution or funder;
• a ban on submissions from the authors involved for a period determined by the editorial board.
Failure by authors to respond or to provide requested data will not in itself be taken as proof of misconduct, but may lead to an expression of concern or referral to the institution.
