Journal of Communications and Information Networks

1. Questionable research practice in publishing includes but is not limited to:

1.1 Fraud: data fabrication or falsification/manipulation of data in such a way as to misrepresent the findings, including omitting information that would affect the interpretation or conclusions.

1.2 Duplicate submission: submission of the same research findings (complete or in part) for consideration at different journals simultaneously. Also duplicate publication: publication of the same research findings in different journals without proper referencing and permission.

1.3 Inadequate citation: submission of closely related papers without appropriate cross-referencing; failure to give due credit to prior work; deliberately neglecting to cite/discuss related work (including one's own) to increase the apparent novelty of the results.

1.4 Plagiarism: presenting material, including results, ideas, and text, from someone else's work as one's own. Also self-plagiarism: copying significant content from one's own previous publications. Some reuse of text from the authors' own (cited) work may be appropriate in an introduction or experimental section, but there should not be substantial overlap in the main discussion.

1.5 Reviewer misconduct: Failure to declare a conflict of interest; blocking/delaying the publication of competing work; use of confidential unpublished information for one's own research.

1.6 Authorship misconduct: Omission from the author list of someone who made a substantial intellectual contribution or inclusion of someone who did not; listing of anyone as an author without their consent and approval of the submitted draft.

2. Dealing with Unethical Behavior

2.1 Editors must follow up on all allegations of scientific misconduct, including requests from third parties anonymous or otherwise when clear evidence is presented. Reviewers or editorial board members may be consulted if appropriate.

2.2 The author/reviewer in question should be informed and given the chance to respond.

2.3 Editors are not in a position carry out a formal investigation themselves. In complex cases, or where the allegations are contested, an institutional investigation may be requested.

2.4 Institutions should ideally have an ombudsman or other designated person to deal with ethical issues and should respond to the journal promptly and let them know what steps will be taken. A full and fair investigation should be carried out within a reasonable time period and the institution should then inform the journal of their findings.

2.5 If appropriate, a retraction or corrigendum should be published to correct the scientific record.

2.6 On rare occasions, sanctions may be necessary on researchers who have engaged in questionable research practices or publishing ethics malpractice. The editorial office can consider for example rejecting the paper with a warning regarding future conduct, banning the author from submitting further manuscripts or serving as a reviewer for a certain period, or informing the author's institution. Sanctions should be applied consistently and only after careful consideration. A means for any sanctions to be appealed by writing to the journal and/or Publisher is possible.

2.7 In cases involving closely related submissions/publications at different journals, the editor may alert the editors of the other journals, including at other publishers, and share information required to clarify the case.