Publication Malpractice Statement

 
Research Integrity

Publication Malpractice Statement

The Journal of AI Analytics and Applications (JAIAA) is committed to protecting the integrity, reliability, and transparency of the scholarly record. Allegations of publication misconduct are assessed carefully, confidentially, and proportionately, with due consideration given to the available evidence and the right of involved parties to respond.

JAIAA addresses suspected misconduct in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics. Editorial decisions are based on evidence and are made independently of commercial, institutional, personal, or other inappropriate influence.

1. Forms of Publication Misconduct

Publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Plagiarism: presenting another person's ideas, text, data, figures, software, or intellectual contribution without appropriate attribution.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication: submitting or publishing substantially the same work in more than one venue without appropriate disclosure or justification.
  • Simultaneous submission: submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
  • Data fabrication: inventing data, observations, participants, experiments, results, or research records.
  • Data falsification: manipulating, omitting, altering, or selectively reporting data or analyses in a way that materially misrepresents the research.
  • Image manipulation: inappropriate alteration, duplication, enhancement, deletion, relocation, or combination of image elements where such modification changes or obscures the interpretation of the research record.
  • Citation manipulation: adding unnecessary or inappropriate citations primarily to increase citation counts or influence journal, author, or article metrics.
  • Peer-review manipulation: providing false reviewer identities, fabricated contact information, inappropriate reviewer suggestions, interference with independent review, or other attempts to compromise the peer-review process.
  • Authorship misconduct: gift authorship, guest authorship, ghost authorship, inappropriate exclusion of contributors, unauthorized changes to authorship, or misrepresentation of author contributions.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably affect the interpretation or evaluation of the work.
  • Ethical or regulatory non-compliance: failure to obtain required ethics approval, informed consent, permissions, or other regulatory authorization where applicable.
  • Misuse of artificial intelligence: using generative AI or other automated systems to fabricate data, references, quotations, evidence, images, peer-review material, or research findings, or failing to disclose material AI assistance where disclosure is required.

2. Investigation Procedure

When a concern regarding possible publication misconduct is received or identified, JAIAA may undertake the following process:

  1. Initial assessment: the editorial office reviews the allegation to determine whether it is sufficiently specific, credible, and relevant to the journal.
  2. Evidence preservation: relevant manuscripts, correspondence, review records, similarity reports, data files, images, metadata, and editorial records may be retained for examination.
  3. Preliminary evaluation: the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor determines whether further investigation is warranted.
  4. Request for explanation: where appropriate, the corresponding author or other relevant party is informed of the concern and invited to provide an explanation and supporting evidence.
  5. Editorial assessment: the available evidence and responses are reviewed. Independent experts, editorial board members, or institutional representatives may be consulted when specialist assessment is required.
  6. Decision: the journal determines an appropriate editorial action based on the nature, seriousness, and evidential support of the concern.
  7. Post-decision action: where required, the manuscript or published record is corrected, rejected, withdrawn, retracted, or accompanied by an expression of concern.

An allegation alone does not constitute proof of misconduct. Decisions are made on the basis of available evidence and the circumstances of the individual case.

Procedural Fairness

3. Author Response and Right of Reply

Where practicable and appropriate, individuals whose work or conduct is under investigation will be given an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised and to provide relevant documents, data, explanations, or other supporting evidence. The journal will consider such responses before reaching a final decision. Failure to respond within a reasonable period may result in the investigation proceeding on the basis of the information available.

Editorial Independence

4. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not investigate or decide cases in which they have a conflict of interest. This may include personal, professional, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, or competitive relationships with the authors or other parties involved.

Where an Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, editorial board member, or other decision-maker has a relevant conflict, responsibility for the case will be transferred to an independent editor, senior editorial representative, or other suitably qualified person.

Research Evidence

5. Data and Image Manipulation

Authors must ensure that data, figures, tables, images, screenshots, analytical outputs, and other research materials accurately represent the underlying work. Adjustments made for clarity or presentation must not alter the scientific meaning of the material.

When concerns arise, the journal may request original data, raw images, source files, analysis code, image metadata, laboratory records, or other supporting material. Inability to provide reasonable supporting evidence may be considered when evaluating the reliability of the published or submitted work.

Contributor Responsibility

6. Authorship Misconduct

Authorship should reflect genuine and accountable scholarly contribution. Individuals who meet the journal's authorship criteria should not be omitted, while individuals who do not qualify for authorship should not be added solely because of seniority, supervision, funding, status, or personal relationships.

Disputes concerning authorship may require written agreement among the authors or, where the dispute cannot be resolved by the journal, clarification from the relevant institution. The journal does not normally adjudicate complex institutional authorship disputes independently.

Responsible AI Use

7. Misuse of Generative AI and Automated Tools

Generative AI and automated tools must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent scholarly evidence. This includes fabricated citations, nonexistent sources, invented datasets, false quotations, manipulated images, fabricated peer-review reports, or artificially generated research results presented as genuine evidence.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, or accountability of a scholarly work.

Authors remain fully responsible for all submitted content, including material developed or refined with AI assistance. Material use of generative AI should be disclosed where required by the journal's author guidelines or publishing policies.

8. Possible Editorial Actions

Depending on the seriousness, timing, and evidential basis of a concern, JAIAA may take one or more of the following actions:

  • request clarification, corrections, original data, or supporting documentation;
  • pause peer review or publication while a concern is investigated;
  • reject a manuscript before publication;
  • withdraw an accepted manuscript before formal publication;
  • publish a correction or corrigendum;
  • publish an expression of concern while a serious unresolved matter is under investigation;
  • retract a published article where the findings or scholarly record are no longer reliable;
  • correct authorship or other publication metadata where appropriate;
  • restrict further submissions in serious or repeated cases of misconduct;
  • contact an author's institution, research integrity office, funder, ethics committee, or other relevant organization when this is warranted by the seriousness and evidence of the case.
Scholarly Record

9. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

JAIAA seeks to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record while maintaining transparency regarding significant post-publication changes.

  • Correction: may be issued when an error affects part of the publication but does not invalidate the central findings.
  • Expression of Concern: may be issued when substantial concerns exist but an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, or dependent on external proceedings.
  • Retraction: may be issued when findings are unreliable because of misconduct or major error, when publication is redundant without appropriate justification, or where serious ethical violations materially undermine the work.

Where appropriate, post-publication notices will be clearly identified, permanently accessible, and linked to the affected article so that the status of the scholarly record remains transparent.

Accountability

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors or other affected parties may submit a reasoned complaint or appeal concerning the handling or outcome of a publication-misconduct case. Requests should identify the decision being challenged and provide relevant evidence or procedural grounds for reconsideration.

Where possible, an appeal will be considered by an editor or senior representative who was not primarily responsible for the original decision. An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse a previous editorial action.

Case Management

11. Confidentiality and Record Keeping

Allegations of misconduct and related investigations will be handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information will normally be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary to assess or resolve the matter. The journal may retain relevant correspondence, evidence, editorial decisions, and case records for research-integrity and administrative purposes.

Principles Applied to Misconduct Cases

Evidence
Decisions are based on documented information.
Fairness
Relevant parties are given an opportunity to respond.
Independence
Conflicted editors do not decide cases.
Proportionality
Actions reflect the seriousness of the concern.
Transparency
Material changes to the published record are documented.