Publication Malpractice Statement

1. Statement of Principle

The Journal of Business and Data Analytics (JBDA) and its publisher, INATGI, do not tolerate publication malpractice in any form. Every manuscript submitted to the journal, every review report, and every editorial decision is expected to meet the standards of honesty, transparency, and accountability set out in the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This statement defines what the journal regards as malpractice, how it prevents and detects it, and what happens when it is found. It should be read together with the journal's Publishing Ethics statement, which describes the positive responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

2. Scope

Publication malpractice includes any act or omission, whether deliberate or the result of serious negligence, that misleads readers, editors, or reviewers about the origin, content, data, authorship, or review of a manuscript, or that undermines the integrity of the peer-review process or the published record. This statement applies to all manuscripts submitted to or published in JBDA, including commissioned articles and special issue contributions, and to everyone involved in producing them.

3. Malpractice by Authors

The following are regarded as malpractice by authors:

  • Data fabrication and falsification – inventing data or results; manipulating, omitting, or altering data, analyses, or figures so that the research is not accurately represented; or reporting results that were not obtained.
  • Selective reporting – presenting only the analyses, models, subsamples, or outcomes that support a preferred conclusion while concealing others that were run (including undisclosed multiple testing, variable selection, or model tuning on test data), or altering hypotheses after results are known without disclosure.
  • Plagiarism – presenting the text, ideas, figures, tables, code, or data of others as one's own, whether copied verbatim, closely paraphrased, or translated, without proper attribution.
  • Self-plagiarism and redundant publication – reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without citation, or dividing a single study into several publications ("salami slicing") to inflate output.
  • Duplicate or simultaneous submission – submitting the same manuscript, or one that overlaps substantially, to more than one journal at the same time.
  • Misrepresentation of the literature – inaccurately reporting the findings or conclusions of cited studies, or omitting relevant evidence that contradicts the argument.
  • Fabricated or falsified references – citing sources that do not exist, that do not support the statement attributed to them, or that have been altered, including unverified references produced by AI tools.
  • Citation manipulation – adding citations that are not relevant to the manuscript in order to inflate the citation counts of any author, journal, or institution.
  • Authorship misconduct – listing as authors individuals who did not contribute (gift authorship), omitting individuals who did (ghost authorship), adding authors for their reputation (guest authorship), or changing authorship without the agreement of all authors.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding – failing to declare financial or non-financial interests, funding sources, or the involvement of a sponsor or of an organization studied in the design, analysis, or reporting of the research.
  • Undeclared or improper use of generative AI – failing to declare the use of AI tools, using them to generate data, results, substantive content, or references without verification, or listing an AI tool as an author.
  • Image and figure manipulation – altering charts, plots, or images in a way that misrepresents the underlying data, or presenting AI-generated images as real.
  • Breach of research ethics – conducting research involving human participants or personal data without required ethical approval or consent, using proprietary or confidential organizational data without permission, or publishing identifiable information about individuals or organizations without authorization.
  • Breach of third-party rights – reproducing copyrighted material, datasets, or code without permission or in breach of their license.
  • Interference with peer review – suggesting reviewers with concealed conflicts of interest, providing false contact details for suggested reviewers, embedding identifying information in a manuscript intended for double-blind review, or attempting to identify, contact, or influence reviewers.
  • False statements to the journal – making untrue declarations at submission, including about originality, authorship approval, ethical approval, data availability, or eligibility for a fee waiver.

4. Malpractice by Reviewers

The following are regarded as malpractice by reviewers:

  • breaching the confidentiality of a manuscript, including sharing it with others without the editor's permission or uploading it to generative AI tools or other external services;
  • attempting to identify the authors of a manuscript under double-blind review, or using suspected knowledge of their identity to bias the review;
  • using ideas, methods, data, code, or text from an unpublished manuscript for personal advantage;
  • failing to disclose a conflict of interest, or reviewing a manuscript despite a conflict;
  • writing a report that is deliberately biased, delaying a report to disadvantage the authors, or reviewing a manuscript one has not read;
  • demanding citation of one's own work or that of associates without scientific justification;
  • delegating a review to another person without the editor's approval, or submitting a report written by someone else as one's own;
  • revealing one's identity to the authors or contacting them directly about the manuscript.

5. Malpractice by Editors and Guest Editors

The following are regarded as malpractice by editors:

  • accepting or rejecting a manuscript for reasons other than its scholarly merit and compliance with journal policy, including personal, commercial, or political considerations;
  • handling a manuscript in which the editor has a conflict of interest, or deciding on one's own manuscript;
  • disclosing confidential information about a manuscript, the identity of authors to reviewers, or the identity of reviewers to authors;
  • using unpublished material from a submitted manuscript without the authors' written consent;
  • appointing reviewers who are known to have conflicts of interest, or relying on fabricated or manipulated reviews;
  • coercing authors to cite the journal, the editor, or the editor's associates;
  • failing to act on credible evidence of misconduct, or suppressing corrections and retractions that are warranted;
  • allowing the editorial process of a special issue to be captured by parties with a commercial or personal interest in its content.

6. Malpractice by the Publisher

The publisher regards the following as malpractice on its own part and commits to preventing it: interfering in editorial decisions on individual manuscripts; linking acceptance to the payment of fees or allowing the ability to pay to influence decisions; permitting advertising or sponsorship to influence content; failing to preserve the published record; and failing to support editors in investigating misconduct.

7. Prevention and Detection

The journal uses the following measures to prevent and detect malpractice:

  • screening of every manuscript with text-similarity software at submission and again before publication, with any substantial overlap examined by an editor;
  • a requirement that authors describe data sources, sampling, variable construction, data preparation, and analytical procedures in enough detail for the study to be reproduced, and a Data Availability Statement in every article;
  • the right of reviewers and editors to request access to data and code during review, and scrutiny of results that are implausible, internally inconsistent, or inadequately documented;
  • verification by reviewers and editors of a sample of references against the original sources, and full verification where a manuscript shows signs of inaccurate citation;
  • a mandatory declaration of generative AI use in every manuscript, and scrutiny of manuscripts whose data, references, wording, or figures suggest undeclared AI generation;
  • a requirement that every author provide an ORCID iD and an institutional e-mail address, and that suggested reviewers be identified by institutional e-mail addresses that are independently checked;
  • checks by the Editorial Office that manuscripts sent for double-blind review contain no identifying information, and that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the authors;
  • a rule that at least one reviewer for each manuscript is not proposed by the authors;
  • independent handling of manuscripts submitted by editors and Editorial Board Members, as described in the Editorial Structure and Governance Model;
  • monitoring of special issues for citation patterns, authorship irregularities, and unusually rapid review;
  • separation of fee and waiver decisions from the editorial process, so that editors and reviewers do not know an author's payment status.

8. Investigation Procedure

When a concern is raised, whether by a reviewer, editor, reader, author, institution, or anonymous source, the journal follows the relevant COPE flowchart. The procedure is as follows:

  1. Receipt and record. The Editorial Office logs the concern and acknowledges receipt within 7 days. The identity of the person raising the concern is protected as far as the investigation allows.
  2. Assignment. The Editor-in-Chief takes charge of the investigation. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or is the subject of the concern, the publisher assigns an Associate Editor or an independent person to conduct it.
  3. Preliminary assessment. The investigating editor examines the available evidence to decide whether the concern is credible and specific enough to pursue. Concerns that are vague, malicious, or unsupported by evidence are closed at this stage, with a record of the reason.
  4. Opportunity to respond. The individuals concerned are informed of the allegation and the evidence, and are given a reasonable period, normally 14 days, to respond in writing. Where the concern relates to data or analysis, the authors may be asked to provide the underlying data, code, and records.
  5. Further inquiry. Where necessary, the journal seeks additional expert opinion, contacts other journals or publishers, or refers the matter to the authors' institutions or funders, which are responsible for investigating research misconduct by their staff.
  6. Decision. The investigating editor reaches a conclusion on the balance of the evidence, decides on the action to be taken, and informs the parties in writing. Decisions on retraction are confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher.
  7. Record. The outcome and the reasoning are documented and retained by the Editorial Office. Serious cases are reported, in anonymized form, in the Editor-in-Chief's annual report to the Editorial Board.

Manuscripts under investigation are placed on hold and are not published until the investigation is complete.

9. Sanctions

Depending on the seriousness of the malpractice, whether it was deliberate, and whether it is a first occurrence, the journal may apply one or more of the following:

  • a written warning and a requirement to correct the manuscript before it proceeds;
  • rejection of the manuscript, with notification of the reason to all authors;
  • a formal letter of concern to the authors' institution, funder, or professional body;
  • publication of a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction of a published article;
  • a ban on new submissions from the individuals concerned, normally for a period of one to three years;
  • removal of a reviewer from the journal's reviewer database, or removal of an editor or Editorial Board Member from their position;
  • in cases involving a special issue, withdrawal of the Guest Editor's appointment and re-review of the affected manuscripts;
  • notification of other journals or publishers where the malpractice affects them.

Article processing charges are not refunded where an article is retracted for malpractice.

10. Correcting the Published Record

Where malpractice affects a published article, the journal corrects the record promptly and transparently in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines. Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices are published as separate items with their own DOIs, are linked in both directions to the original article, and state clearly the nature of the problem and who identified it. Retracted articles remain accessible, marked as retracted on every page, so that the reasons for retraction can be understood. Articles are removed from the website only where required by law or where their continued availability would pose a serious risk of harm.

11. Reporting Concerns

Anyone who suspects publication malpractice in connection with a manuscript or published article in JBDA is encouraged to report it to the Editorial Office at editorial@inatgi.net. Reports should identify the manuscript or article concerned and describe the problem as specifically as possible, with supporting evidence where available. The journal does not disclose the identity of a person raising a concern without their consent, and does not tolerate retaliation against anyone who reports a concern in good faith.

12. Review of This Statement

This statement is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher at least every two years and whenever COPE guidance or relevant law changes. The current version and its effective date are shown on this page.

Effective date: 01/01/2026.