JPPMI | PUBLICATION ETHICS AND INTEGRITY
Prevention, reporting, assessment, and resolution of misconduct in community engagement scholarship.
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, transparency, and ethical quality of scholarly publications concerning community engagement, community empowerment, and community development.
The journal recognizes that community engagement may involve education, training, mentoring, technical assistance, participatory activities, and community-based interventions. Such activities do not necessarily constitute formal human-participant research; nevertheless, their scholarly reports must accurately represent what was planned, implemented, observed, evaluated, and concluded.
This policy establishes procedures for addressing suspected misconduct in submitted, accepted, and published manuscripts. JPPMI follows principles of procedural fairness, confidentiality, proportionality, accountability, and protection of the scholarly record.
This policy applies to manuscripts reporting community service, community engagement, empowerment initiatives, community-based training, participatory development programs, and related scholarly activities submitted to or published by JPPMI.
It applies to authors, contributors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and other persons involved in the journal's editorial processes.
The policy covers concerns arising before acceptance, during peer review, during production, and after publication. It also addresses misconduct involving scholarly reporting, editorial practices, participant protection, and relevant community partnership records.
JPPMI's editorial review of a misconduct allegation does not replace investigations conducted by institutions, ethics committees, regulatory authorities, or other authorized bodies.
Misconduct includes acts or practices that materially compromise the accuracy, originality, ethical conduct, or credibility of a manuscript or published article.
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Fabrication | Inventing activities, participants, observations, evaluation results, or supporting documentation that do not exist. |
| Falsification | Manipulating records, findings, attendance, measurements, or documentation so that the report misrepresents actual events. |
| Plagiarism | Using another person's words, data, photographs, instruments, ideas, or outputs without appropriate attribution or permission. |
| Redundant Publication | Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure and justification. |
| Authorship Misconduct | Improper inclusion or exclusion of authors, false contribution claims, or unauthorized authorship changes. |
| Ethics and Consent Violations | Failure to obtain required approval, permissions, or consent, or inappropriate disclosure of identifiable participant information. |
| Editorial Manipulation | Manipulation of peer review, reviewer identities, citations, editorial decisions, or other publication processes. |
| Misleading AI-Generated Content | Submission of fabricated references, invented observations, synthetic evidence presented as real, or other materially misleading content created with AI tools. |
These categories are illustrative rather than exhaustive. The presence of an error, disagreement, or limitation does not by itself establish deliberate misconduct.
JPPMI pays particular attention to the integrity of community engagement documentation because program activities often involve external partners, beneficiaries, local institutions, and vulnerable populations.
Reporting a training session, workshop, outreach activity, mentoring program, or community intervention that did not take place, or materially exaggerating the implementation of an activity, constitutes a serious integrity concern.
Examples include inventing beneficiaries, artificially increasing attendance figures, duplicating participant records, or misrepresenting individuals as program participants without supporting evidence.
Forging signatures, letters of cooperation, institutional endorsements, community approval letters, or implementation certificates is prohibited. Authors must accurately distinguish between institutional permission, collaboration, participation consent, and ethics approval.
Photographs, screenshots, videos, and other documentary materials must accurately represent the reported activities. Reusing unrelated photographs as evidence of a different activity, altering images to misrepresent attendance or outcomes, or presenting synthetic images as actual program documentation is unacceptable.
Routine image adjustments that do not change substantive meaning may be acceptable, provided they are not misleading and comply with journal requirements.
Authors must not invent questionnaire responses, pre- and post-intervention scores, interview findings, observations, or other evaluation data. Results must be derived from the procedures actually implemented.
Authors must not describe temporary observations as proven long-term outcomes without supporting evidence. Claims of effectiveness, empowerment, behavior change, improved livelihoods, or sustainability must reflect the design, measurement period, and limitations of the activity.
Community members, traditional knowledge holders, local organizations, and partners must not be misrepresented, exposed unnecessarily, or deprived of appropriate acknowledgment. Permissions, intellectual contributions, and confidentiality commitments must be respected.
Authors are responsible for maintaining appropriate records that support the activities, methods, evaluation findings, and conclusions reported in their manuscripts.
Depending on the type of activity and allegation, the editorial office may request relevant documentation, including:
Evidence requests must be proportionate and must respect confidentiality, consent, applicable law, and legitimate community agreements. The journal does not require unrestricted public disclosure of identifiable participant records or other protected information.
JPPMI distinguishes honest mistakes, methodological limitations, inadequate reporting, questionable practices, and substantiated misconduct.
An incorrect table label, an incomplete description of a program, or a calculation error may be addressed through clarification or correction when the underlying evidence is reliable.
By contrast, deliberately fabricated activities, forged partner authorization, manipulated evaluation records, or intentional concealment of material ethics violations may justify stronger editorial or institutional action.
Proportionality principle: The absence of a formal ethics approval letter does not automatically establish misconduct when formal approval was not required for the activity. The applicable requirements, level of risk, institutional rules, and period in which the activity was conducted must be considered.
Authors must ensure that submitted information is accurate, original, appropriately documented, and ethically obtained. They must disclose relevant limitations, funding, conflicts of interest, and material uses of generative AI. All authors share responsibility for addressing credible questions concerning the reliability of their contribution.
Reviewers should report credible integrity concerns through confidential editorial channels and must not independently contact community participants, access protected data, or disclose manuscript content without authorization.
Editors must assess concerns impartially, manage conflicts of interest, maintain appropriate confidentiality, preserve relevant records, and ensure that affected parties have a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Authors, reviewers, readers, community partners, institutional representatives, and other concerned parties may report suspected misconduct to the JPPMI editorial office.
A report should identify the manuscript or published article, explain the alleged concern, and provide relevant evidence or specific information that permits reasonable verification.
Reports may be submitted without disclosing the complainant's identity to the public. Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently detailed and credible; however, the journal may be unable to request clarification or provide a response.
Complainants should avoid unnecessary disclosure of participant identities, confidential community information, or sensitive supporting documents.
STEP 01
The editorial office receives and documents the concern, identifies the affected manuscript or article, and determines whether immediate protective action may be needed.
STEP 02
An editor assesses the specificity, credibility, relevance, and available evidence. Unsubstantiated allegations are not treated as proven misconduct.
STEP 03
Relevant authors or other parties may be asked to provide an explanation, original records, permissions, data, or other supporting material within a reasonable period.
STEP 04
The editor evaluates the explanations and evidence. Matters requiring investigation beyond the journal's authority may be referred to an institution, ethics committee, funder, professional body, or other competent authority.
STEP 05
An authorized editor determines appropriate editorial action on the basis of the available evidence, reliability of the reported work, applicable policies, and institutional findings when available.
STEP 06
The outcome is documented and communicated to relevant parties, subject to confidentiality, privacy, and institutional restrictions.
Case duration depends on complexity, evidence availability, participant protection needs, and any external investigation. The journal does not guarantee a fixed conclusion date for every allegation.
Depending on the editorial stage, seriousness of the concern, and reliability of the evidence, JPPMI may take one or more of the following actions:
Actions affecting published articles will follow JPPMI's correction, retraction, and post-publication procedures. Retraction is not used merely because an article receives criticism or because authors disagree with an editorial interpretation.
Complaints or allegations involving an editor must not be investigated solely by that editor. Cases involving the Editor-in-Chief should be referred to an independent editorial board member or another appropriate responsible person who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Editors and reviewers must withdraw from the assessment of a case when personal, institutional, financial, or other interests could reasonably compromise impartiality.
Editorial integrity decisions must not be influenced by article processing charges, publication targets, commercial interests, personal relationships, or institutional pressure.
The identities of complainants, participants, community partners, and other affected persons will be protected to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair assessment, institutional requirements, and applicable law.
JPPMI does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise credible integrity concerns in good faith. The journal also recognizes that individuals facing allegations are entitled to fair treatment and must not be publicly characterized as responsible for misconduct before appropriate assessment.
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed absolutely where information must be disclosed for legitimate investigation, procedural fairness, protection of affected persons, or legal compliance.
When an integrity concern affects an already published article, JPPMI will consider the most appropriate post-publication action, taking into account the reliability of the scholarly record, the severity of the problem, and the outcome of any relevant investigation.
Authors or other parties who believe an editorial process was handled improperly may use the journal's Complaints and Appeals procedure. An appeal should identify relevant procedural or evidentiary grounds rather than merely express disagreement with an unfavorable decision.
A correction, expression of concern, or retraction must be communicated transparently and linked to the affected publication as appropriate.
The editorial office maintains records of credible concerns, preliminary assessments, relevant correspondence, requested evidence, editorial decisions, and follow-up actions, subject to appropriate access controls.
Lessons arising from integrity cases may inform improvements to author instructions, reviewer guidance, editorial screening, community consent practices, and reporting standards.
This policy may be reviewed periodically to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, and responsible community engagement practices. Any substantive revision should be documented and communicated appropriately.
JPPMI considers credible reporting, respectful partnerships, authentic community participation, responsible evaluation, and transparent scholarly communication essential to the value of community engagement publications.
The journal will assess suspected misconduct fairly and proportionately, protect participants and community partners, and take appropriate editorial action to maintain confidence in the published record.
