Allegation of Research Misconduct

Startupreneur Business Digital (SABDA Journal) is committed to maintaining research integrity, academic transparency, and ethical publishing practices. The journal evaluates allegations of research misconduct involving submitted manuscripts and published articles through fair, confidential, and evidence-based procedures, guided by relevant principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct involves practices that compromise the authenticity, reliability, or ethical integrity of scholarly findings. SABDA Journal addresses the following potential violations:

• Data Fabrication: Creating fictitious survey responses, business performance records, experimental results, or other research evidence.

• Data Falsification: Manipulating datasets, statistical analyses, research procedures, or computational outputs to misrepresent findings.

• Plagiarism: Presenting another person's ideas, text, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

• Duplicate Publication: Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research without proper disclosure.

• Authorship and Citation Manipulation: Misrepresenting scholarly contributions or deliberately manipulating references to influence citation metrics.

• Research Ethics Violations: Using confidential or personal data without appropriate authorization, failing to obtain required ethical approval, or misrepresenting research involving human participants.

• Misrepresentation of Artificial Intelligence: Presenting AI-generated results as independently verified empirical evidence or concealing material details about automated research procedures.

• Peer Review Manipulation: Interfering with reviewer selection, providing fraudulent reviewer information, or attempting to influence editorial assessments improperly.

Unintentional errors, methodological disagreements, and differences in scientific interpretation are not automatically classified as misconduct. Their implications are evaluated according to the available evidence.

2. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Concerns regarding potential research misconduct may be submitted to the SABDA Journal Editorial Office by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, or other parties with relevant information.

Reports should contain:

• The title, author names, and DOI or submission details of the article concerned, where available.

• A clear description of the suspected violation.

• Supporting documentation, such as comparative publications, research records, data inconsistencies, or other verifiable evidence.

The Editorial Team assesses reports according to their relevance and supporting evidence. Anonymous submissions may be considered when sufficient information is provided for verification.

3. Editorial Assessment and Investigation

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent editor coordinates the examination of credible allegations. Depending on the nature of the concern, the procedure may include:

1. Preliminary Review: Determine the relevance and seriousness of the allegation and whether further examination is justified.

2. Evidence Examination: Review manuscripts, datasets, analytical records, similarity reports, or other relevant documentation.

3. Author Clarification: Provide the authors with an opportunity to explain disputed findings and submit supporting materials.

4. Expert Consultation: Seek independent technical assessments or institutional assistance when specialized investigation is necessary.

5. Editorial Determination: Evaluate the available evidence and decide whether corrective action or further referral is required.

The duration of an assessment depends on the complexity of the case and the availability of supporting information. Formal investigations concerning individual research misconduct may be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority.

4. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

SABDA Journal handles allegations with appropriate discretion and impartiality. Information obtained during an inquiry is disclosed only when necessary for a fair assessment or required by applicable legal obligations.

Individuals reporting concerns in good faith should be protected from retaliation. Authors facing allegations must be informed of the substantive concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse editorial determination is made, except where urgent protective action is necessary.

Editors or other participants with relevant conflicts of interest must withdraw from the assessment.

5. Editorial Decisions and Corrective Actions

Editorial responses are determined by the seriousness of the findings and their impact on the reliability of the research.

• Manuscript Suspension or Rejection: Editorial processing may be suspended while significant concerns are examined. Rejection may follow when serious violations are established.

• Correction: A formal notice may be issued when identified errors can be corrected without invalidating the principal findings.

• Expression of Concern: A notice may be published when substantial questions remain unresolved and readers need to be informed.

• Retraction: An article may be retracted when its findings are unreliable or serious ethical violations justify removal from the valid scholarly record.

• Institutional Referral: Cases requiring formal investigation may be referred to the authors' affiliated institutions or appropriate authorities.

Published notices will identify the affected article, explain the basis for the editorial action, and remain accessible as part of the publication record.

6. Editorial Accountability

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the implementation of this policy and ensures that research integrity concerns are addressed through appropriate editorial procedures. The Editorial Board may provide independent advice when additional expertise or impartial review is required.

SABDA Journal applies this policy alongside its Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, and Conflict of Interest policies. Editorial decisions are intended to protect the accuracy and credibility of published research rather than impose disciplinary sanctions on individual researchers.

Ethical Reference: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)