Research Misconduct Policy

The Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences is committed to maintaining high standards of research and publication integrity.

The journal considers research and publication misconduct to be serious violations of scholarly integrity and will take appropriate action when credible concerns are identified.

The journal refers to relevant principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other recognized standards of responsible research and scholarly publishing when addressing research and publication integrity concerns.

This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, and other individuals involved in the journal's publication processes.

1. Research and Publication Misconduct

Research or publication misconduct includes practices that compromise the integrity, reliability, originality, or transparency of scholarly work.

Potential forms of misconduct include, but are not limited to:

• Fabrication of data or results.
• Falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data.
• Plagiarism.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Undisclosed substantial overlap with previously published work.
• Manipulation or inappropriate alteration of images or figures.
• Citation manipulation.
• Authorship or contributorship manipulation.
• Ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
• Peer-review manipulation.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Misrepresentation of research methods or results.
• Failure to obtain required ethical approval.
• Misrepresentation of ethical approval or informed consent.
• Misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
• Other practices that materially compromise research or publication integrity.

This list is not exhaustive, and each concern will be assessed according to its circumstances and available evidence.

2. Fabrication

Fabrication is the invention of data, results, observations, participants, experiments, or other research information that did not actually occur.

Examples may include:

• Inventing experimental results.
• Creating nonexistent participants or samples.
• Reporting experiments that were not performed.
• Creating fabricated datasets.

Fabrication is considered serious research misconduct.

3. Falsification and Inappropriate Data Manipulation

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, processes, data, images, results, or other research information in a manner that produces a misleading representation of the research.

Examples may include:

• Selectively altering or removing data without appropriate justification.
• Manipulating experimental conditions or procedures.
• Misrepresenting research results.
• Inappropriately modifying scientific images.
• Concealing relevant results in a misleading manner.

Legitimate data processing, statistical analysis, image adjustment, or correction of technical artifacts does not constitute falsification when appropriately disclosed and scientifically justified.

4. Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, data, images, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism may include:

• Verbatim copying without appropriate quotation and citation.
• Close paraphrasing without appropriate attribution.
• Unattributed use of ideas or data.
• Reuse of figures, tables, or images without appropriate permission or attribution.
• Substantial copying from previously published or unpublished material.

Additional requirements concerning plagiarism screening and editorial action are provided in the journal's Plagiarism Policy.

5. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not submit or publish substantially the same work in more than one journal without appropriate justification and disclosure.

Potential forms of duplicate or redundant publication include:

• Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals.
• Republishing substantially the same article without appropriate disclosure.
• Reusing substantial portions of previously published material without appropriate disclosure.
• Dividing research into multiple publications in a manner that improperly duplicates or fragments the scientific record.

Legitimate secondary publication may be considered where appropriate and where applicable ethical and publishing requirements are satisfied.

6. Image and Figure Manipulation

Images and figures must accurately represent the underlying research.

Authors must not manipulate images or figures in a manner that misrepresents the findings.

Appropriate adjustments may be acceptable when they:

• Are applied consistently to the relevant image.
• Do not remove or conceal important information.
• Do not create misleading results.
• Are appropriately disclosed when necessary.

Where significant concerns regarding image integrity arise, the journal may request original or unprocessed data.

7. Citation Manipulation

Citation practices must serve legitimate scholarly purposes.

The journal considers the following inappropriate:

• Adding citations solely to increase citation counts.
• Coercive citation.
• Coordinated citation manipulation.
• Excessive self-citation without scholarly justification.
• Excessive citation of a particular journal, author, or group without legitimate scholarly relevance.

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to add citations solely to improve journal, author, reviewer, or institutional metrics.

8. Authorship and Contributorship Misconduct

Authorship and contributorship must accurately reflect genuine scholarly contributions.

Potential authorship misconduct includes:

• Guest authorship.
• Gift authorship.
• Ghost authorship.
• Falsifying contribution statements.
• Undisclosed changes to the author list.
• Adding or removing authors without appropriate agreement.
• Listing individuals who did not make qualifying contributions.
• Excluding individuals who made substantial qualifying contributions.

Such concerns will be handled according to the Authorship & Contributorship Policy.

9. Peer-Review Manipulation

The journal considers manipulation of the peer-review process to be serious publication misconduct.

Potential examples include:

• Providing fabricated reviewer identities.
• Creating fake reviewer accounts or email addresses.
• Suggesting reviewers with undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Attempting to improperly influence reviewers.
• Using confidential peer-review information for personal or professional advantage.
• Interfering with the independent assessment of a manuscript.
• Coordinated manipulation of the peer-review process.

The journal may verify reviewer identities and affiliations where appropriate.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may constitute a publication ethics concern.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and Editorial Board members must disclose relevant conflicts in accordance with the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute misconduct. However, intentional concealment of a significant conflict may require investigation.

11. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Failure to obtain required ethical approval or informed consent may constitute a serious ethical concern.

Authors must accurately report, where applicable:

• Ethical approval.
• Ethics committee information.
• Approval or reference numbers.
• Informed consent procedures.
• Consent for publication where required.

False or misleading statements concerning ethical approval or informed consent may be investigated as potential misconduct.

Further requirements are provided in the Ethical Oversight Policy.

12. Misuse of Confidential Information

Individuals involved in peer review and editorial processes must protect confidential information obtained through their involvement with the journal.

Confidential manuscript or review information must not be:

• Shared without authorization.
• Used for personal or professional advantage.
• Used to develop competing research.
• Used to influence commercial or other interests.

Breaches of confidentiality may be investigated and may result in appropriate editorial action.

13. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Concerns regarding possible research or publication misconduct may be raised by:

• Authors.
• Reviewers.
• Editors.
• Editorial Board members.
• Readers.
• Researchers.
• Institutions or research organizations.
• Other individuals with credible information.

Reports should provide sufficient information and supporting evidence, where available, to allow the journal to assess the concern.

Anonymous allegations may be considered when they raise credible and potentially serious concerns.

14. Initial Assessment

When a credible allegation is received, the journal will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether further investigation is warranted.

The initial assessment may include:

• Reviewing the manuscript or published article.
• Examining relevant editorial records.
• Reviewing available data or supporting documentation.
• Checking publication history.
• Consulting appropriate editors or experts.
• Contacting the authors for clarification.

The journal will seek to distinguish genuine concerns from misunderstandings, legitimate scholarly disagreement, or honest errors.

15. Author Response and Supporting Documentation

Where appropriate, authors will be given an opportunity to respond to allegations concerning their work.

Authors may be asked to provide:

• Raw or supporting data.
• Original figures or images.
• Ethical approval documentation.
• Consent information.
• Research protocols.
• Laboratory or study records.
• Clarification of authorship.
• Explanations concerning publication history.
• Other relevant documentation.

Failure to provide reasonable clarification or supporting documentation may be considered when determining appropriate action.

16. Institutional and External Investigation

The journal recognizes that serious research misconduct investigations may require institutional expertise and authority.

Where appropriate, the journal may refer concerns to:

• The author's institution.
• A research ethics committee.
• A research integrity office.
• A funding organization.
• A regulatory authority.
• Another competent organization.

The journal may cooperate with legitimate institutional or external investigations and may provide relevant information where appropriate and legally permissible.

17. Editorial Actions

Depending on the nature and severity of the concern, possible editorial actions may include:

• Request for clarification.
• Correction of the published record.
• Rejection of a submitted manuscript.
• Withdrawal of a manuscript before publication.
• Expression of Concern.
• Retraction.
• Restriction or termination of the peer-review process.
• Notification of relevant institutions or authorities.
• Other appropriate measures.

The action taken will depend on the available evidence, seriousness of the concern, stage of publication, and potential effect on the integrity of the scholarly record.

18. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Where misconduct or a significant error affects a published article, the journal may correct, issue an Expression of Concern about, or retract the article as appropriate.

Corrections and retractions will be handled according to the journal's Retraction & Correction Policy.

The journal aims to ensure that the published record remains as accurate and transparent as reasonably possible.

19. Honest Errors

Not every error constitutes research misconduct.

Honest mistakes, reasonable differences in interpretation, methodological limitations, or unintentional errors will not automatically be considered misconduct.

However, when an error materially affects the reliability of a published article, the journal may issue an appropriate correction or other post-publication notice.

20. Allegations Involving Editors, Reviewers, or Editorial Board Members

Allegations concerning editors, reviewers, or Editorial Board members will be assessed independently where reasonably possible.

Individuals directly involved in an allegation should not make the final decision concerning their own conduct.

The journal may seek independent advice or refer the matter to an appropriate external authority when necessary.

21. Confidentiality During Investigations

The journal will handle misconduct allegations and investigations confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will be shared only with individuals who need it for the appropriate assessment or investigation.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is necessary to:

• Conduct an appropriate investigation.
• Protect research participants.
• Contact an institution or competent authority.
• Correct the scholarly record.
• Comply with legal or regulatory requirements.

22. Protection of Good-Faith Whistleblowers

The journal recognizes the importance of good-faith reporting of research and publication integrity concerns.

Individuals who raise legitimate concerns in good faith should not be subject to retaliation by the journal because they reported a concern.

The journal will seek to handle such reports responsibly and confidentially.

23. Malicious or Bad-Faith Allegations

The journal distinguishes between legitimate concerns and knowingly false, malicious, threatening, or deliberately misleading allegations.

Where evidence indicates that a complaint or allegation was submitted in bad faith, the journal may discontinue consideration of the matter and take appropriate action.

This provision does not prevent individuals from raising legitimate concerns that cannot immediately be substantiated.

24. Artificial Intelligence and Research Misconduct

The use of artificial intelligence does not remove authors' responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical conduct of their research and manuscripts.

Potential misconduct involving artificial intelligence may include:

• Fabricated references.
• Fabricated data or results.
• Misrepresentation of AI-generated content as original research.
• Manipulation of images or scientific content.
• Inappropriate use of confidential material.
• Failure to disclose AI use where disclosure is required by the journal's AI Policy.

The journal may investigate suspected AI-related misconduct using appropriate methods.

25. Data and Research Records

Authors are responsible for maintaining appropriate research records and supporting documentation for their work.

Where necessary and ethically permissible, the journal may request access to relevant supporting information to assess concerns about the integrity of reported research.

Requests for data or documentation will take into account:

• Participant confidentiality.
• Privacy.
• Intellectual property.
• Legal restrictions.
• Institutional requirements.
• Legitimate data-sharing limitations.

26. Post-Publication Concerns

Concerns regarding a published article may be raised after publication.

The journal may assess post-publication concerns involving:

• Data integrity.
• Ethical approval.
• Authorship.
• Plagiarism.
• Duplicate publication.
• Image manipulation.
• Conflicts of interest.
• Research methodology.
• Other issues affecting the reliability or integrity of the published record.

Where appropriate, the journal will follow its Retraction & Correction Policy.

27. No Presumption of Misconduct

The journal does not consider an allegation to be proof of misconduct.

Individuals concerned will be given an appropriate opportunity to respond before a final editorial determination is made, except where immediate action is necessary to protect research participants, the scholarly record, or the integrity of an ongoing investigation.

28. Relationship With COPE Guidance

The Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences may refer to relevant guidance and resources from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when assessing allegations of research or publication misconduct.

The journal may also consider relevant disciplinary standards, institutional procedures, and applicable national or international requirements.

COPE guidance may assist the journal in determining appropriate procedures and editorial responses, but the circumstances and evidence of each case will be considered individually.

29. Policy Review

The Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences reviews this policy as appropriate to ensure that it remains consistent with developments in research integrity, publication ethics, and recognized standards of scholarly publishing.

The policy may be updated when necessary to reflect changes in research practices, ethical requirements, or the journal's publishing processes.

Related Policies

• Publication Ethics
• Ethical Oversight Policy
• Authorship & Contributorship Policy
• Complaints & Appeals Policy
• Plagiarism Policy
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• AI Policy
• Retraction & Correction Policy
• Peer Review Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright & Licensing Policy