16. Scientific Misconduct

Purpose

The Pakistan Journal of Gastroenterology (PJG) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of honesty, integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. Scientific misconduct undermines the credibility of research, damages public trust, and compromises the integrity of the scientific record.

The Journal investigates all allegations of research and publication misconduct fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

16.1 Definition of Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct includes any intentional or reckless act that compromises the integrity, reliability, or ethical conduct of research or scholarly publication.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

  • Fabrication of data.
  • Falsification or manipulation of research findings.
  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Image manipulation or inappropriate image enhancement.
  • Citation manipulation.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Misrepresentation of authorship.
  • Ethical approval fraud.
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process.

16.2 Fabrication and Falsification

The Journal strictly prohibits:

  • Inventing research data or experimental results.
  • Altering, manipulating, or selectively reporting data.
  • Omitting findings to misrepresent study outcomes.
  • Modifying images, figures, or graphs in a misleading manner.

Authors may be required to provide original datasets, laboratory records, or supporting documentation during editorial review or investigation.

16.3 Plagiarism

All forms of plagiarism constitute scientific misconduct, including:

  • Direct plagiarism.
  • Mosaic (patchwork) plagiarism.
  • Inappropriate paraphrasing.
  • Self-plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Unauthorized use of figures, tables, images, or datasets.

Suspected plagiarism will be handled in accordance with the Journal's Plagiarism Policy.

16.4 Authorship Misconduct

The following practices are considered unethical:

  • Ghost authorship.
  • Gift or honorary authorship.
  • Guest authorship.
  • Omission of eligible authors.
  • False author affiliations.
  • Submission without the knowledge or consent of all listed authors.

Authorship disputes will be managed according to the Journal's Authorship Policy.

16.5 Ethical Approval Misrepresentation

Providing false or misleading information regarding:

  • Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
  • Ethics Committee approval.
  • Informed consent.
  • Clinical trial registration.

constitutes serious scientific misconduct.

The Journal may request original ethics approval documents at any stage of the editorial process.

16.6 Peer Review Misconduct

The Journal considers the following practices unacceptable:

  • Submission of false reviewer identities.
  • Reviewer identity manipulation.
  • Undisclosed reviewer conflicts of interest.
  • Breach of reviewer confidentiality.
  • Misuse of confidential manuscript information.
  • Attempts to influence editorial decisions through unethical means.

16.7 Editorial Investigation

When scientific misconduct is suspected, the Journal may:

  • Conduct a preliminary assessment.
  • Request explanations from the corresponding author.
  • Obtain supporting documentation.
  • Consult independent experts.
  • Contact the authors' institution(s).
  • Follow the relevant COPE Flowcharts and guidance.

Investigations will be conducted confidentially, impartially, and fairly.

16.8 Editorial Actions

Depending on the severity of the misconduct, the Journal may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Request clarification or correction.
  • Suspend editorial processing.
  • Reject the manuscript.
  • Publish a Correction (Erratum or Corrigendum).
  • Publish an Expression of Concern.
  • Retract the published article.
  • Notify the authors' institution(s), funding agencies, or regulatory authorities.
  • Restrict future submissions from the responsible author(s) for a specified period.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.

16.9 Author Responsibility

By submitting a manuscript, all authors confirm that:

  • The work is original.
  • Data are accurate and honestly reported.
  • Ethical approvals and participant consents have been obtained where required.
  • All authors meet the Journal's authorship criteria.
  • Conflicts of interest and funding have been fully disclosed.
  • No form of scientific misconduct has occurred.

The Corresponding Author accepts primary responsibility for the integrity of the submitted work.

16.10 Whistleblower Protection

Individuals who report suspected scientific misconduct in good faith will be treated fairly and confidentially.

The Journal will make every reasonable effort to protect the identity of whistleblowers unless disclosure is required by law or is necessary to conduct a fair investigation.

16.11 Policy Compliance

Failure to comply with this policy may result in editorial sanctions before or after publication.

The Journal reserves the right to investigate any allegation of scientific misconduct regardless of when it is identified.

References

This policy has been developed in accordance with:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – Core Practices and COPE Flowcharts.
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations.
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations.
  • Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.
  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOAJ, COPE, OASPA, WAME).