Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy

The Journal of Computer Networks, Architecture and High Performance Computing (CNAHPC) is committed to maintaining academic honesty, methodological transparency, data integrity, and ethical standards throughout the publication process.

All allegations of research and publication misconduct will be assessed fairly, objectively, proportionately, and on the basis of available evidence, following the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definition and Types of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct may involve conduct that violates accepted standards of academic honesty, originality, transparency, or scholarly responsibility.

Potential forms of misconduct include:

1. Plagiarism: Presenting another party's text, ideas, source code, algorithms, figures, or research findings without appropriate acknowledgment.

2. Data Fabrication: Inventing experimental observations, computational results, benchmark measurements, or other research data that were never generated.

3. Data Falsification: Manipulating, selectively altering, or omitting experimental results in a manner that misrepresents the findings.

4. Manipulation of Algorithm Evaluation: Deliberately misrepresenting validation procedures, dataset partitioning, data leakage, benchmark configurations, or model performance.

5. Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Republishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment.

6. Authorship Misconduct: Misrepresenting author contributions, including inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of contributors.

7. Peer-Review Manipulation: Fabricating reviewer identities, creating fraudulent reviewer accounts, or improperly influencing editorial evaluation.

8. Data and Security Ethics Violations: Unauthorized use of personal data, restricted datasets, computing infrastructure, or third-party information systems.

9. Copyright and Licensing Violations: Using software, datasets, images, or other protected materials in violation of applicable permissions or licensing requirements.

Unintentional errors, legitimate scientific disagreements, and unsuccessful replication attempts do not automatically constitute research misconduct.

Determining whether misconduct has occurred requires appropriate examination of the available evidence and relevant circumstances.

2. Reporting Allegations

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, researchers, and other stakeholders may report suspected misconduct involving submitted manuscripts or published articles.

Reports should be submitted to:

Editorial Contact: publikasi@itscience.org

Reports should identify the manuscript or article concerned, explain the alleged misconduct, and provide relevant supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence may include substantial textual similarities, inconsistent experimental records, discrepancies in reported datasets, replication results, software logs, or other verifiable documentation.

CNAHPC will consider reports submitted in good faith regardless of the reporter's academic position or institutional affiliation.

3. Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the journal's responsibilities and whether sufficient information exists to justify further examination.

This assessment may include similarity screening, methodological review, dataset examination, verification of experimental results, and consultation with relevant subject-matter experts.

For computational research, the assessment may consider benchmark protocols, hardware configurations, software versions, algorithm parameters, and validation procedures.

A preliminary concern does not constitute a determination of misconduct.

4. Investigation Procedures

When an allegation warrants further examination, CNAHPC will initiate an appropriate editorial investigation.

The process may involve requesting clarification from the authors, reviewing supporting documentation, consulting independent experts, and contacting the authors' institutions when necessary.

Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond and provide relevant explanations or evidence.

For matters involving cybersecurity, system vulnerabilities, confidential datasets, or sensitive information, the editorial team will consider the risks associated with disclosing technical details during the investigation.

CNAHPC will not require the disclosure of passwords, security credentials, encryption keys, or unrelated confidential information.

Where formal investigation exceeds the journal's authority, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority.

5. Confidentiality and Protection of Involved Parties

CNAHPC will maintain the confidentiality of allegations, correspondence, and investigative materials to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with applicable obligations.

Access to confidential information will be limited to authorized individuals involved in the assessment.

All parties will be treated fairly, and allegations will not be presented as established misconduct without adequate evidence.

Individuals who report concerns honestly and in good faith should not be subjected to inappropriate retaliation.

6. Editorial Decisions and Corrective Actions

Following the assessment, CNAHPC may take appropriate editorial action depending on the seriousness of the issue and the available evidence.

Possible actions include:

1. Requesting clarification or manuscript revision.

2. Rejecting a manuscript before publication.

3. Publishing a formal correction.

4. Issuing an Expression of Concern.

5. Retracting a published article.

6. Referring the matter to relevant institutions or authorities when appropriate.

7. Taking other proportionate editorial measures consistent with publication ethics principles.

Editorial decisions will be documented and based on verifiable evidence.

When corrective action concerns a published article, a formal notice will be issued and linked to the relevant publication whenever technically feasible.

7. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in handling misconduct allegations must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Individuals whose impartiality may reasonably be compromised will not participate in the affected assessment or decision.

CNAHPC will maintain editorial independence and ensure that decisions are not improperly influenced by personal, institutional, or commercial interests.

8. Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors who believe an editorial decision concerning alleged misconduct was based on a material factual or procedural error may submit an appeal to:

publikasi@itscience.org

Appeals must include a clear explanation and relevant supporting evidence.

Where feasible, appeals will be assessed by an editor or independent party who was not directly involved in the original decision.

Submitting an appeal does not automatically reverse or suspend the editorial decision.

9. Documentation and Policy Review

CNAHPC will maintain appropriate documentation of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessments, editorial decisions, and corrective actions.

Records will be stored securely, with access restricted to authorized personnel.

This policy will be reviewed periodically to maintain consistency with developments in publication ethics, computational research practices, information security standards, and COPE guidance.

10. Commitment to Research Integrity

CNAHPC recognizes that research integrity is fundamental to scientific progress in computer science and computational technology.

The journal is committed to promoting originality, accurate experimental reporting, methodological transparency, responsible data use, and ethical editorial practices.

All allegations of research misconduct will be handled professionally, fairly, and on the basis of evidence to preserve confidence in the journal's scholarly publications.