1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian (JP3) is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and reliability of scholarly publishing. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously, whether they arise before or after publication, in accordance with the principles outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices on Allegations of Misconduct.

JP3 will assess allegations fairly, objectively, and confidentially, while respecting the rights of all parties involved. The journal will not presume that an allegation establishes misconduct; decisions will be based on relevant evidence, appropriate procedures, and, where necessary, findings from the responsible research institution, consistent with COPE's guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals in research integrity and publication misconduct cases.

2. Definition and Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to conduct that undermines the reliability, originality, or ethical integrity of research and scholarly publication. Depending on the circumstances and applicable institutional rules, suspected misconduct may include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research practices, or other serious breaches of publication ethics. JP3 will assess each allegation in accordance with the relevant evidence and applicable ethical standards, with reference to COPE's Core Practices.

Examples of suspected misconduct include, but are not limited to:

• Fabrication of research data, results, observations, or sources.
• Falsification, manipulation, or misleading presentation of research data, methods, images, or results.
• Plagiarism, including the unattributed use of another person's words, ideas, data, or research outputs.
• Duplicate or redundant publication, including substantial overlap with previously published work without appropriate disclosure.
• Manipulation of authorship, including inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of contributors.
• Undisclosed or inappropriate conflicts of interest that may affect the integrity of the research or editorial process.
• Research conducted without required ethical approval, consent, or other applicable safeguards.
• Manipulation of peer review, citation practices, or editorial processes.
• Other serious ethical breaches that may compromise the reliability of the research record.

These examples are intended to guide assessment and are not an exhaustive list; relevant COPE guidance includes intellectual property and plagiarism, authorship and contributorship, ethical oversight, and peer review processes.

3. Reporting Allegations

Allegations may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, research institutions, editors, or other individuals who have a reasonable basis for raising a concern. Reports should be directed to the JP3 editorial office through the contact details provided on the journal's official website: Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian.

Where possible, the report should identify the article or manuscript concerned, describe the suspected misconduct, and provide supporting information or documentary evidence. Anonymous reports may also be considered when they contain sufficiently specific information to permit a reasonable preliminary assessment. This process reflects the COPE Core Practice requiring journals to maintain a clearly described process for handling allegations, including allegations raised by whistleblowers.

4. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the editor-in-chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's remit, whether sufficient information is available, and whether further inquiry is warranted. The assessment may include reviewing the manuscript, publication record, research data or supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence, in line with the procedures illustrated in the COPE flowchart on suspected ethical problems in submitted manuscripts.

The journal will distinguish between honest error, disagreement over interpretation, and potential misconduct. An allegation alone will not be treated as proof of wrongdoing. Where the information is insufficient, the journal may request clarification or additional evidence before deciding whether to proceed.

5. Investigation Procedure

If the initial assessment indicates a credible concern, JP3 may contact the corresponding author and, where appropriate, other relevant authors to request an explanation and supporting documentation. The authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised. The journal's handling of ethical concerns will follow the general approach set out in the COPE flowchart for suspected ethical problems in submitted manuscripts.

If the concern cannot be resolved through the journal's preliminary inquiry, or if the allegation requires formal institutional investigation, JP3 may refer the matter to the author's institution, employer, research-integrity office, or another appropriate authority. COPE's guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals describes the respective roles of journals and institutions in communicating concerns and responding to research misconduct cases.

During an ongoing investigation, JP3 may suspend editorial consideration of a submitted manuscript when necessary. For an article already published, the journal may consider an appropriate interim notice if serious concerns could affect the reliability of the published work. Such actions will be proportionate to the nature of the concern and informed by the relevant COPE guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections.

6. Cooperation with Research Institutions

Authors and their institutions may be asked to provide relevant information needed to assess the allegation. JP3 may share necessary evidence with the appropriate institutional authority, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements, privacy obligations, and relevant laws. The journal and institution should communicate clearly and cooperate where appropriate, following COPE's guidelines on cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases.

JP3 recognises that the journal's role is not necessarily to replace a formal institutional investigation. Where an institution is responsible for investigating the conduct of its researchers, the journal may request information about the outcome insofar as it can be shared lawfully and appropriately. The journal will independently assess whether editorial action is required to protect the integrity of the scholarly record, consistent with the same COPE cooperation guidance.

7. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Allegations and related communications will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair assessment, applicable law, and the need to investigate the concern. Information will be shared only with individuals or institutions who reasonably need it for the assessment or investigation. This approach is consistent with the confidentiality considerations discussed in COPE's guidance on research integrity cases involving journals and institutions.

JP3 will seek to treat complainants, authors, reviewers, editors, and other involved parties fairly and without prejudgment. The journal will take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary reputational harm while ensuring that credible concerns about the integrity of research are not ignored, in line with the principles in COPE's Core Practices for responsible scholarly publishing.

8. Editorial Actions and Outcomes

Depending on the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the stage of publication, JP3 may take one or more of the following actions:

• Close the case if the allegation is unsupported or adequately resolved.
• Request clarification, additional evidence, or corrections from the authors.
• Reject a submitted manuscript if serious concerns remain unresolved or the work fails to meet the journal's ethical requirements.
• Pause editorial processing while an appropriate investigation is pending.
• Publish an expression of concern when significant unresolved questions may affect readers' assessment of a published article.
• Publish a correction or retraction when warranted by the evidence and the relevant publication-ethics standards.
• Refer the matter to the author's institution or another relevant authority when appropriate.

These options are consistent with the principles in COPE's Core Practice on post-publication discussions and corrections and the COPE flowchart for suspected ethical problems in submitted manuscripts.

Editorial decisions will be based on the available evidence and the circumstances of the individual case. Where a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is considered, JP3 will follow its applicable editorial procedures and the relevant COPE retraction guidance, where applicable.

9. Post-Publication Allegations

Allegations concerning an article already published by JP3 will be assessed with the same seriousness as allegations concerning manuscripts under review. The journal may examine the published article, supporting data, related publications, and information provided by the complainant or other relevant parties. Where concerns may affect the reliability of the published record, JP3 will consider appropriate action in accordance with COPE's guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections.

If a formal investigation confirms that an article requires correction or retraction, JP3 will publish an appropriate notice and link it to the affected article, where technically and editorially feasible. The purpose of such action is to maintain transparency and protect the integrity of the scholarly record, consistent with the COPE retraction guidance.

10. Appeals and Requests for Reconsideration

Authors or other directly affected parties may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration of an editorial action by providing relevant new evidence or identifying a procedural concern. The request will be assessed by the editor-in-chief or an appropriate editor who is not directly conflicted, where feasible. The journal's handling of such requests will be guided by transparent editorial procedures and the principles outlined in COPE's guidance on complaints and appeals.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Any editor or editorial board member who has a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest in a case must disclose it and, where appropriate, withdraw from handling the allegation. JP3 will appoint another suitably qualified and independent editor when necessary. This procedure reflects the principles in COPE's Core Practice on conflicts of interest and competing interests.

12. Policy Review

JP3 will review this policy periodically to ensure that it remains appropriate for the journal's editorial practices and is consistent with relevant developments in publication ethics. The policy is informed by COPE's Core Practices and related COPE guidance. Where necessary, JP3 may revise its procedures to strengthen fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and the integrity of the scholarly record.