Research Misconduct

ELT Echo is committed to the integrity of the scholarly record. This page defines research misconduct, explains how allegations are reported and handled, and describes the actions the journal takes. It operates together with the Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Notice, Correction and Retraction, and AI Policy pages.

1. What the journal treats as research misconduct

• Fabrication: making up research data or information.
• Falsification: manipulating or altering research data, materials, images, or information.
• Plagiarism: taking part or all of another person’s work without proper acknowledgement; rewriting another’s work without using one’s own words even when the source is cited; or reusing one’s own published work without proper citation (self-plagiarism).
• Unauthorized authorship: adding a person who made no contribution to the work; omitting a person who did; or having another person write the work without crediting that contribution (ghost authorship).
• Undisclosed conflict of interest: producing or handling an article in order to benefit or disadvantage a particular party.
• Multiple submission and redundant publication: submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal, or publishing substantially the same findings more than once without cross-reference or justification.
• Unethical research: research involving humans or animals conducted without the required ethical approval, or without informed consent.
• Other breaches of academic integrity under applicable laws and regulations.

A similarity-check percentage is only an indicator. It does not by itself prove plagiarism. The editors look at the detail of the report, especially a large match with one specific work, and distinguish it from properly quoted text.

2. Who may report

Anyone may report a concern, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and institutions. Reports concern manuscripts under review as well as articles already published.

3. How to report

Email eltecho.syekhnurjati@gmail.com with the subject line “Research Misconduct Report”. Please include:

1. the title, authors, and DOI (or manuscript ID) of the work concerned;
2. a description of the concern and the evidence supporting it, such as data, matching sources, or documents;
3. your name, affiliation, and email address.

Reports made in good faith are treated confidentially. The journal does not disclose the identity of a reporter to the authors without the reporter’s consent, except where this is required by law or by an investigating institution. Retaliation against a person who reports in good faith is not tolerated. Anonymous reports are considered only when they contain verifiable evidence.

4. How allegations are handled

ELT Echo applies a documented procedure with five stages:

1. Initial evidence check. Within 14 days of receipt, the editors confirm that the report concerns ELT Echo and is supported by enough evidence to proceed. The reporter is told whether the case is taken up.
2. Clarification. The corresponding author, and where relevant the co-authors, are informed of the concern and asked for a written explanation and supporting data within 30 days.
3. Investigation. The Editor-in-Chief appoints an investigating panel of at least two editors or independent experts, none of whom has a conflict of interest. The panel may request original data, ethical approvals, and further similarity or image checks, and may consult the authors’ institution.
4. Decision. The panel reports to the Editor-in-Chief, who decides on the case together with the editorial board, normally within 90 days of the start of the investigation. The authors and the reporter are informed of the outcome and its basis.
5. Corrective action. The journal carries out the actions in section 5 and records them.

5. Possible outcomes and actions

• Manuscript under review: rejection, with notification to the authors, and where the misconduct is serious, a restriction on future submissions for a stated period or permanently.
• Published article, error that does not undermine the main findings: a correction (erratum or corrigendum).
• Published article, misconduct or a serious error that makes data, findings, or conclusions unreliable: retraction.
• Manuscript not yet officially published: withdrawal.
• Further steps: a written notice to the authors’ institution, funder, or relevant authority, and a formal reminder or warning to the person responsible.

Each notice of correction or retraction is public, names the article, the type of action, the reason, and the party that decided. It is linked to the article and reflected in the DOI and metadata. A retracted article stays on the website and in the archive, and is clearly marked as retracted on the article page, in the full-text file, and in the metadata. The journal never removes an article without a public notice. Details are on the Correction and Retraction page.

6. Action taken by the authors

Authors who spot a significant error in their own published work must notify the journal promptly. Timely, transparent self-correction is taken into account when the journal decides on its response.

7. Research ethics

Manuscripts reporting research with human participants must state the number and year of the ethical clearance from the relevant committee, or include an authors’ statement on ethical compliance that has been approved by the reviewers or editors for low-risk research. Missing or false ethical information may lead to the actions above.

8. Records

The editorial office keeps a confidential record of every report, the evidence considered, the decision, and the actions taken.

9. Related policies

Publication Ethics · Plagiarism Notice · Post-Publication Discussion · Correction and Retraction · AI Policy.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ELT Echo requires all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, to disclose any conflict of interest. Transparency about competing interests protects the objectivity of peer review and allows readers to assess the work fairly. The journal follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. What Is a Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when financial, institutional, personal, or other interests could influence, or could reasonably be seen to influence, a person’s judgment in writing, reviewing, or making decisions about a manuscript. A conflict of interest is not in itself misconduct. Failing to disclose one is.

Examples relevant to legal research include:

• Financial: research funding, honoraria, consultancy fees, shares, or other payments from parties who have an interest in the subject of the article.
• Professional: acting as legal counsel, expert witness, or advisor in a case, dispute, or regulatory process discussed in the article.
• Institutional: affiliation with a government body, company, law firm, or organization whose interests are affected by the article’s analysis or recommendations, for example an author who was involved in drafting the law being analyzed.
• Personal: a family relationship, close friendship, or rivalry with someone whose work or interests are affected by the manuscript.
• Intellectual or advocacy: strong public commitment to a particular position, or active involvement in an advocacy group, related to the subject of the article.

2. Obligations of Authors

• Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest in a Conflict of Interest Statement at the end of the manuscript, before the References.
• Authors must state all sources of funding for the research in a Funding Statement, together with the role of the funder, if any, in the research and writing.
• If there is no conflict of interest, authors must still include a statement saying so.
• Authors who become aware of a conflict of interest after submission or publication must inform the editors immediately.

Example statements:

Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Conflict of Interest: The author served as legal counsel for one of the parties in the case discussed in this article. This involvement has been taken into account in the analysis and did not affect the conclusions.

Funding: This research was funded by [name of funder] under grant number [number]. The funder had no role in the design of the research, the analysis, or the decision to publish.

3. Obligations of Reviewers

Reviewers must decline an invitation to review, or inform the editors immediately, if they:

• have a close professional, personal, or financial relationship with any of the authors,
• have co-authored with, supervised, or been supervised by any of the authors within the last three years,
• work in the same department or research unit as any of the authors,
• have a direct interest in the case, dispute, or regulation discussed in the manuscript,
• are unable to assess the manuscript objectively for any other reason.

Reviewers must not use information from a manuscript under review for their own benefit or the benefit of others.

4. Obligations of Editors

• Editors must not handle any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest. Such a manuscript is assigned to another editor who has no conflict.
• Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team go through the same peer review process as all other manuscripts. The editor who submitted the manuscript is excluded from all stages of handling it and has no access to information about its reviewers or the editorial decision.
• Manuscripts from authors at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, the publisher of the journal, are assigned wherever possible to editors and reviewers from other departments or institutions, so that the review stays independent.
• Editorial decisions are based only on the quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript. They are not influenced by the author’s affiliation, nationality, gender, religion, or political views, or by commercial considerations.

5. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

If a conflict of interest that was not disclosed is discovered during review or after publication, the journal will handle it according to its policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct. Depending on how serious the case is, the journal may ask the author to add a statement, publish a correction, or, where the undisclosed conflict undermines the validity of the work, retract the article.