Research Misconduct

A concern is assessed, not assumed. JACR examines every credible allegation fairly, confidentially, and without prejudgement, follows the applicable COPE flowchart, and gives the people concerned the opportunity to respond before any finding is recorded. A concern does not by itself establish misconduct.

1. What the journal treats as misconduct

Category	What it covers
Fabrication and falsification	Inventing or altering data, images, monitoring traces, haemodynamic or airway measurements, drug doses, or outcomes; reporting patients who were not anaesthetised or procedures that were not performed; omitting adverse events, failed blocks, or conversions so that a technique appears safer than it was.
Plagiarism and text reuse	Using another person’s words, data, figures, or argument without attribution, including self-plagiarism, undisclosed translation, and undisclosed reuse. Screened and classified under the Similarity and Plagiarism Policy.
Duplicate, redundant, or salami publication	Publishing the same trial or cohort, or a substantially overlapping dataset and analysis, more than once; simultaneous submission elsewhere; dividing one dataset into several thin reports.
Image manipulation	Adjusting, splicing, or enhancing clinical photographs, ultrasound or radiographic images, or monitoring screenshots so that features are created, removed, or obscured. Adjustments must apply to the whole image and be described; original files are retained and supplied on request.
Citation manipulation	Citations added without scholarly justification, including coercive or gratuitous self-citation, and citation pressure exerted by a reviewer or an editor.
Peer-review manipulation	Fabricated reviewer identities or contact details, reviews written by the authors or their associates, and any improper attempt to influence the choice of reviewer.
Undisclosed competing interests	Concealing a financial or non-financial interest a reader would want to know about, including the supply of drugs, monitors, airway devices, or infusion systems used in the study. See Conflict of Interest.
Authorship violations	Gift, guest, and ghost authorship, and the omission of a qualifying contributor. See Authorship.
Unethical research conduct	Absent, falsified, or misrepresented ethics approval; research or publication without the consent required; trial conduct departing materially from the registered protocol without disclosure; publishing identifying patient details without authorisation.

2. Who may raise a concern, and how

Concerns may be raised by anyone — a reader, a reviewer, an editor, a patient or their representative, an institution, or an author about their own work — and are directed to journalanesthesiology@gmail.com with the article title and DOI, the specific passages, figures, or claims concerned, and whatever evidence supports them.

A concern is examined however long after publication it is raised, and action is not withheld because it was raised anonymously. An anonymous concern is assessed on its evidence.

3. How concerns are handled

The editor acknowledges the concern and records it against the article.
An editor with no interest in the matter assesses the evidence and follows the applicable COPE flowchart.
The journal may request the underlying data, anaesthetic records, monitoring traces, or ethics documentation; invite a written response from the authors; consult independent experts; and re-run similarity screening.
The authors are told what is alleged and given a reasonable period to respond before any finding is recorded, and their response is considered on its merits.
Where the evidence suggests serious misconduct, the journal contacts the authors’ institution, which is the body competent to investigate allegations against its researchers. The journal does not conduct an employment investigation.
The person raising a concern is kept informed of the outcome so far as confidentiality allows, and is not identified to the authors without consent.

Where patient confidentiality limits what authors may supply, they are asked to demonstrate the existence and provenance of the material in a way their consent and ethics approval permit. Inability to release identifiable records is assessed in that light and is not by itself evidence of fabrication.

4. Protections during an investigation

The matter is kept confidential while examined, and details are shared only with those who need them.
No finding is recorded and no public notice issued until the authors have had the opportunity to respond.
A concern about an editor, a board member, or the publisher is handled by someone who is not its subject; see Publisher and Editorial Governance.
Raising a concern in good faith does not prejudice that person’s standing with the journal, as author or as reviewer.

5. Possible outcomes

The response is proportionate to the evidence and to the stage reached; an honest error is corrected, while deliberate misconduct is not treated as an error. Depending on the finding, the journal may take no further action and say so; require revision, disclosure, or documentation before a manuscript proceeds; decline the manuscript; publish a correction, an expression of concern while an institutional investigation is unresolved, or retract the article; notify the authors’ institution, funder, or ethics committee; decline future submissions from the responsible parties for a stated period; or remove a reviewer or board member.

The mechanisms for each notice are described in Corrections, Retractions, and Post-publication Updates. Scholarly debate about a published article is not a misconduct matter and is handled under Post-publication Discussion.

6. Appeals

An author who considers a finding wrong may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, setting out the grounds; the appeal is referred to an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Where it concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to the publisher. The general route is set out in Complaints and Appeals; a complainant who remains unsatisfied may approach COPE.

7. Records

The concern, the evidence, the authors’ response, the finding, and the action taken are retained in the article record and are available, under Editor credentials, to accreditation assessors and to any properly constituted investigation.

8. Standards followed

This policy follows the COPE Core Practices and flowcharts for suspected misconduct, the ICMJE Recommendations, and the requirements of Indonesian national journal accreditation.

Read together with Publication Ethics, Similarity and Plagiarism Policy, Authorship, Conflict of Interest and Corrections, Retractions, and Post-publication Updates. Reviewed at least once a year.