Allegations of Research Misconduct

Repertoar Journal is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and credibility of scholarly research and publication. The journal takes allegations of research misconduct seriously and addresses concerns arising before or after publication through fair, confidential, and evidence-based editorial procedures. This policy is guided by recognized principles of publication ethics, including those promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definition and Scope of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to practices that compromise the integrity, reliability, originality, or ethical conduct of scholarly research and publication. Such practices may include, but are not limited to:

Fabrication: Inventing research data, observations, interviews, or findings that were not actually obtained.
Falsification: Manipulating research materials, procedures, data, or results in ways that misrepresent the research findings.
Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, words, data, or creative works without appropriate acknowledgment.
Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure or justification.
Authorship misconduct: Misrepresenting author contributions, including inappropriate authorship attribution or the omission of eligible contributors.
Research ethics violations: Failing to comply with applicable requirements concerning informed consent, participant protection, confidentiality, or research ethics approval.
Misrepresentation of research materials: Inappropriately altering or presenting musical scores, audio recordings, images, audiovisual materials, or other research evidence in a misleading manner.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose relevant relationships or interests that may influence the research or publication process.

This policy applies to manuscripts under editorial consideration and articles already published in Repertoar Journal.

2. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Concerns regarding potential research misconduct may be submitted to the editorial team by readers, reviewers, authors, researchers, institutions, or other relevant parties through the journal's official communication channels.

Reports should provide sufficient information to identify the manuscript or published article, describe the alleged misconduct, and include supporting evidence whenever available.

The editorial team will consider allegations in good faith, including those submitted anonymously when sufficient verifiable evidence is provided. Allegations will not be treated as established facts until they have been appropriately assessed.

3. Preliminary Assessment and Investigation

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the scope of this policy and whether further examination is warranted.

When necessary, the journal may examine manuscript records, similarity reports, research documentation, correspondence, or other relevant materials.

The author or authors concerned will normally be given an opportunity to provide an explanation and submit supporting documentation before an editorial decision is made.

Where allegations involve matters requiring institutional authority or specialized investigation, the journal may contact the authors' affiliated institutions or other appropriate bodies. The journal does not claim to replace formal institutional investigations.

4. Editorial Decisions and Corrective Actions

Editorial actions will be determined according to the nature, severity, and available evidence of the alleged misconduct.

For manuscripts that have not yet been published, possible actions include:

Requesting clarification or additional documentation from the authors.
Requiring revisions or corrections to address identified concerns.
Suspending editorial consideration while significant concerns are examined.
Rejecting manuscripts when serious ethical violations or research misconduct are established.

For published articles, appropriate actions may include:

Correction: Publishing a notice to address errors that do not invalidate the principal findings or conclusions.
Expression of Concern: Informing readers of serious unresolved concerns when available evidence is inconclusive or an investigation remains pending.
Retraction: Issuing a formal notice when findings are unreliable, serious misconduct is established, or other circumstances justify withdrawal from the scholarly record.

Editorial decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the available evidence, applicable ethical standards, and the need to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

5. Post-Publication Integrity and Retraction

Repertoar Journal recognizes that concerns regarding research integrity may arise after an article has been published. Such concerns will be evaluated regardless of the time elapsed since publication.

When a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is warranted, the journal will seek to provide a clear and accessible editorial notice explaining the nature of the action and its relationship to the original article.

Retracted articles should ordinarily remain identifiable as part of the scholarly record, with their retracted status clearly indicated. Complete removal of published content will be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as serious legal, privacy, or safety concerns.

The journal may coordinate with authors, institutions, and relevant indexing or archiving services when necessary to maintain accurate publication records.

6. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Due Process

Repertoar Journal is committed to handling allegations of misconduct impartially, respectfully, and with appropriate confidentiality.

Information relating to an allegation will be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary for assessment, investigation, or resolution.

All parties will be treated fairly, and allegations will be evaluated on the basis of available evidence rather than assumptions or personal interests. Editors with relevant conflicts of interest should not participate in decisions concerning the affected manuscript or article.

Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns, except where immediate action is necessary to address significant risks or legal obligations.

7. Policy Implementation and Review

Repertoar Journal may refer to relevant COPE guidance when evaluating allegations of research misconduct and determining appropriate editorial responses.

This policy operates alongside the journal's Publication Ethics, Anti-Plagiarism and Similarity Policy, Authorship Criteria, and other applicable editorial policies.

The journal may periodically review and update these procedures to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, and publication ethics.