Publication Ethics and Integrity
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Journal of Institutional Policy and Governance is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, and academic responsibility. The journal is committed to ensuring that all stages of scholarly publishing are conducted fairly, objectively, confidentially, and responsibly. The journal follows the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing.
This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and the publisher. The journal is committed to preventing and addressing plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, and other forms of publication misconduct.
All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope. Editorial decisions are made independently and without discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political belief, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics.
Duties of Editors
Publication Decisions
Editors are responsible for making fair, objective, and timely decisions concerning submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts that fall within the journal's focus and scope and meet the initial submission requirements will be considered for peer review.
Editorial decisions are based primarily on the manuscript's originality, academic significance, methodological quality, clarity, validity, and relevance to the journal's scope. The final decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript rests with the designated editor in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.
Fair Play
Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic and scholarly merit. Editors must not discriminate against authors based on race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political belief, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics. Editorial decisions must remain independent from commercial, political, or institutional influence.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and related information. Information concerning a manuscript may only be disclosed to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, publisher, or other authorized parties involved in the editorial process.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors must not use unpublished information obtained through the editorial process for personal research or advantage without the explicit written permission of the authors.
Editors must declare and manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. An editor who has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript must recuse themselves from the editorial process and assign the manuscript to another qualified editor.
Management of Unethical Behavior
The editors, together with the publisher(s), should take rationally responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Reviewer Selection
Editors are responsible for selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise and ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted fairly and independently. Editors should avoid selecting reviewers who have personal, professional, financial, or academic conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.
Handling Allegations
Editors must respond appropriately to allegations of research or publication misconduct. When a complaint is received, the editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation requires further investigation. Where appropriate, the authors will be given an opportunity to respond.
The journal may consult reviewers, editorial board members, institutions, or other appropriate experts during an investigation. If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript or, for published articles, issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction as appropriate.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was based on a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or conflict of interest. Appeals must provide a clear and substantive explanation and should be submitted to the editorial office through the official journal communication channel.
Complaints concerning editorial processes, peer review, publication ethics, or journal management will be handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with applicable publication ethics principles.
Duties of Authors
Reporting Standards
Authors must present an accurate and complete account of their research and provide sufficient methodological information to allow the work to be understood and, where applicable, replicated. Research findings must be reported honestly. Authors must not fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or intentionally misrepresent data, methods, results, or conclusions. Review articles must be accurate, objective, and sufficiently comprehensive.
Data Availability and Retention
Authors should retain research data and supporting materials for a reasonable period after publication. Where ethically and legally permissible, authors may be asked to provide relevant data or supporting materials for editorial verification. Authors must respect confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property rights, and applicable regulations concerning research data.
Research Ethics and Ethical Approval
Research involving human participants, personal data, interviews, surveys, or other ethically sensitive information must comply with applicable ethical standards. Where required, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research. Authors must obtain informed consent where applicable and must ensure that confidential or personally identifiable information is adequately protected.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are original and have not been published previously. All ideas, data, arguments, quotations, and materials derived from other sources must be appropriately cited and acknowledged.
Plagiarism, including direct copying, substantial unattributed paraphrasing, self-plagiarism, and misappropriation of another person's ideas or work, is unacceptable. All manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism or similarity-detection software.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. Authors must not publish substantially the same research in multiple journals without appropriate justification and disclosure.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors must appropriately acknowledge all sources that have contributed to the development of the research. Information obtained privately through correspondence, conversations, interviews, or confidential sources must not be used without appropriate permission where such permission is required.
Authorship
Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the research. All individuals who have made substantial contributions should be appropriately recognized. All listed authors must have approved the final manuscript and agreed to its submission. The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal and ensuring that all co-authors have approved the submitted manuscript.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal editor. Authors are expected to cooperate with the editorial team in correcting or retracting the article when necessary.
Declaration of Competing Interests
Authors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their research. Authors must also disclose all sources of financial support and describe the role of funders in the research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and publication decision.
Image Integrity
It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly. Authors should comply with any specific policy for graphical images applied by the relevant journal, e.g. providing the original images as supplementary material with the article, or depositing these in a suitable repository.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Qualifications and Promptness
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise and sufficient time to conduct a thorough review. Reviewers who feel unqualified or unable to complete the review within the required period should promptly notify the editor and decline the assignment.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence into publicly accessible or unauthorized generative AI systems. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their evaluations.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, reviewing research, and writing an article by authors, or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper contains such misconduct, a retraction can be published and linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.
Suppose scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility. In that case, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who requested to provide a detailed response on behalf of all of the co-authors. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.
Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an essential obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on evaluating these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions,Journal of Institutional Policy and Governance will continue to fulfill its responsibilities ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
Research Misconduct
Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
- Fabrication of data or research results;
- Falsification or manipulation of research data;
- Plagiarism;
- Duplicate or redundant publication;
- Citation manipulation;
- Unethical authorship practices;
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- Manipulation of peer review;
- Misrepresentation of research findings; and
- Other serious violations of research or publication ethics.
When misconduct is suspected, the journal will conduct an appropriate preliminary assessment and may request clarification or supporting evidence from the authors. The journal may involve relevant experts or institutions where necessary.
If the allegation is substantiated, the journal may reject the manuscript, issue a correction or expression of concern, retract the article, or take other appropriate measures depending on the seriousness of the misconduct.
Correction and Retraction
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)Journal of Institutional Policy and Governance upholds its responsibility to maintain the integrity, accuracy, and completeness of the scholarly record for the benefit of the academic community and readers. Any changes to published articles are made only under specific circumstances, following the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal places great importance on the authority and reliability of its published content and is committed to transparency in addressing necessary corrections or retractions.
An Erratum is a formal statement issued by the authors of the original article to address errors or omissions identified after publication. Such corrections may include factual inaccuracies, typographical mistakes, or other minor issues that do not compromise the overall conclusions of the study. When an erratum is published, the corrected article remains available on the Badrion website, with a clearly linked and freely accessible notice indicating the nature of the correction. Any impact on the article’s findings or interpretation is explicitly stated.
A Retraction is issued when an article’s findings or integrity are deemed unreliable, whether due to research misconduct, honest error, duplicate publication, plagiarism, or unethical research practices. A retraction notice clearly explains the reason for the action and identifies who initiated it, authors, editors, or the publisher. The retracted article remains on the Badrion website to preserve the scholarly record but is clearly marked as retracted, with the retraction notice freely accessible and linked to the original article. If a retraction occurs without the unanimous consent of the authors, this is duly noted. In rare and exceptional cases involving legal or ethical violations, the publisher may redact or remove an article while retaining bibliographic information to maintain record integrity.
A Publisher’s Note is issued by the publisher to notify readers of corrections made after publication due to typographical or production errors that affect article metadata, such as the title, author names, or byline, or significantly hinder comprehension. In such cases, the original article is replaced with a corrected version, and the date of correction is indicated. Publisher’s Notes are freely available to all readers. Minor errors that do not affect comprehension or scholarly integrity are corrected at the discretion of the publisher. Authors should note that an article may be replaced with a corrected version only within one year of its original publication date; corrections beyond this period will be recorded through a Publisher’s Note.
This policy is fully aligned with the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles, which serve as a foundation for ethical editorial decision-making and best practices in scholarly publishing.
Plagiarism Policy
Statement and Policy
Journal of Institutional Policy and Governance does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct. Submitted manuscripts must be original, unpublished, and not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere.
Quoted, paraphrased, adapted, or reproduced material from other sources must be appropriately cited. Verbatim text must be clearly identified using quotation marks or block quotation as appropriate, and copyrighted tables, figures, or other material must be accompanied by permission when required.
Similarity Screening
Submitted manuscripts may be screened using Turnitin or comparable similarity-detection software. A similarity score is treated as a screening indicator rather than automatic proof of plagiarism; the editor evaluates the nature, source, and context of any overlap.
Editorial Screening Thresholds
- Similarity above 40%: the manuscript may be rejected when the overlap indicates extensive unattributed copying, poor paraphrasing, duplicate publication, or another serious integrity concern.
- Similarity from 15% to 40%: the manuscript may be returned for revision, improved attribution and paraphrasing, or further editorial investigation before peer review.
- Similarity below 15%: the manuscript may proceed when the overlap is legitimate and properly cited; the editor may still require corrections when problematic passages are identified.
Authors remain responsible for ensuring that all reused material is lawful, accurately attributed, and compliant with scholarly and publication-ethics standards.
Generative AI Use Policy
Overview
Journal of Institutional Policy and Governance recognizes the potential of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies to enhance research, writing, and editorial efficiency when used responsibly. This policy provides guidance to authors, reviewers, and editors to ensure transparency, accountability, and ethical use of AI tools in all stages of the publication process. The journal adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and will regularly review and update this policy in response to evolving best practices.
For Authors
Authors may use generative AI and AI-assisted tools to support tasks such as language editing, literature organization, and idea generation. However, these tools must not replace human analysis, critical thinking, or originality. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and integrity of all content in their manuscripts.
All AI-generated text, data, or visuals must be reviewed, verified, and edited by the authors to ensure authenticity and originality. Any use of AI tools must be transparently disclosed in an AI Declaration Statement included upon submission, specifying the tool’s name, purpose, and extent of use. Basic proofreading (e.g., grammar or spelling corrections) does not require disclosure.
AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors, as authorship requires human accountability and intellectual contribution. The use of AI to generate or manipulate figures, tables, or images is strictly prohibited, unless it is an explicit and essential part of the research methodology, in which case full details must be provided in the methods section.
For Reviewers
Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of them into AI tools, as doing so may violate data privacy and confidentiality. Similarly, reviewers should not use AI tools to draft or edit their review reports.
Peer review requires critical judgment and independent evaluation, which cannot be delegated to AI technologies. Reviewers are solely accountable for the content, integrity, and conclusions of their review reports.
For Editors
Editors must uphold strict confidentiality throughout the editorial and peer review process. Manuscripts, decision letters, or correspondence must not be uploaded into AI systems for processing, summarization, or editing.
Editorial decisions must rely on human expertise, ethical judgment, and scholarly integrity. Editors may use in-house or licensed AI tools only for routine screening purposes, such as plagiarism checks or reviewer matching, provided these tools comply with data privacy and ethical standards.
Commitment to Ethical AI Use
Journal of Institutional Policy and Governance supports the responsible use of AI technologies that enhance efficiency and uphold research integrity while protecting confidentiality, privacy, and intellectual property. Transparency in AI use fosters trust among authors, reviewers, editors, and readers and strengthens the ethical foundation of scholarly publishing.
