Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy
The Dialogue, quarterly research journal by Qurtuba University of Science & Information Technology, policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at https://publicationethics.org/misconduct. Authors are required to read the journal’s author instruction and ethical policies carefully and to adhere to the terms before submission.
The Dialogue, the “double-blind peer reviewed (anonymous reviewer/anonymous author) journal carefully checks conflicts of interest of all reviewers before they are invited to review. Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under peer review process. The procedure for the application and management of complaints of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and in the following manner:
- The editorial office of the journal receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
- The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
- The editorial office will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
- The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation with factual statements and any available evidence.
- If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the editorial office will take the following actions depending on the situation:
- If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description.
- If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
- In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
- The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
- The complaint case will there upon be considered concluded