Investigation of Allegations of Academic Misconduct Policy

[Updated by the Editorial Board, March 15, 2023]

This page is linked from and refers to TRADITION‘s Code of Ethics page.

TRADITION’s editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In the event that the publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in our journal, the publisher or editor will follow the guidelines below. TRADITION’s policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Elsevier’s Content Policy and Selection Guide. The editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In the event that the publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in our journal, the publisher or editor will rely on the following guidelines. Authors are instructed to read the journal’s author guidelines and ethical policies carefully and to adhere to the terms before submission. Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process. The procedure for the application and management of complaints of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and in the following manner:

1. The editorial office of the journal receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
2. The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized passage should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
3. The editorial office will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the author of the suspected article will be in contact.
4. The author will be asked to provide an explanation with factual statements and any available evidence.
5. If the author of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the editorial office will take the following actions depending on the situation: (A) If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description; or (B) If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author making the relevant changes.
6. In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant academic field, institution, or other authorities as required.
7. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
8. The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.

Guided by the principles and ideals of Jewish ethical law against slander, public embarrassment, and reputational damage, this process will be conducted with the utmost sensitivity to all concerned, and with particular care that allegations that might ultimately be proven false will not be made public while under investigation in a way that would inadvertently cause damage to the accused, unless and until proven otherwise.