Policy on Research Misconduct, Investigation, Corrections, and Retractions

Policy on Research Misconduct, Investigation, Corrections, and Retractions

The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Educational Technologies and Teacher Education – IJAIET is committed to the integrity of the scholarly record, research ethics, editorial transparency, author accountability, and the ongoing correction of scientific literature.

The journal recognizes that responsibility for scientific publication does not end when an article is published. Whenever relevant errors, ethical violations, irregularities, fraud, manipulation, plagiarism, or other circumstances capable of compromising the reliability of a published work are identified, IJAIET may initiate procedures for investigation, correction, expression of concern, or retraction, according to the nature and severity of the case.

This policy is based on the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE, the Code of Good Scientific Practice of the São Paulo Research Foundation – FAPESP, the Research Integrity Guidelines of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq, the CNPq Policy on Integrity in Scientific Activity, the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors – CSE, particularly those concerning integrity in scientific journal publishing, and the international principles of ethics, integrity, Open Science, and scientific responsibility promoted by UNESCO.

IJAIET understands retraction primarily as a mechanism for correcting the scientific literature rather than as a mechanism for punishing authors. Its principal purpose is to clearly inform the scientific community that a particular work, in whole or in a substantial part, should no longer be considered reliable or valid as part of the scholarly record.

 

1. Concept of Research Integrity

Research integrity comprises the principles, values, and responsibilities that should guide every stage of the production and communication of scientific knowledge, from research conception to data collection and analysis, authorship, writing, peer review, publication, data sharing, and post-publication correction of the scholarly record.

IJAIET considers the following to be fundamental principles of research integrity:

  • intellectual honesty;
  • truthfulness;
  • objectivity and impartiality;
  • transparency;
  • accountability;
  • traceability;
  • respect for authorship and intellectual property;
  • protection of research participants;
  • confidentiality;
  • disclosure of conflicts of interest;
  • reproducibility, where applicable;
  • responsibility for correcting the scholarly record.

FAPESP structures its approach to research integrity around interconnected dimensions of education, prevention, and fair and rigorous investigation and sanctioning. The CNPq framework similarly emphasizes prevention, integrity, accountability, and appropriate investigation of potential violations.

 

2. Concept of Research Misconduct

For the purposes of this policy, research misconduct means any action or omission, committed intentionally or, depending on the circumstances, through serious negligence, that violates fundamental principles of research integrity and compromises or may compromise the reliability of research, accuracy of the scholarly record, rights of third parties, or legitimacy of scholarly communication processes.

Among the classical and most serious forms of research misconduct are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

IJAIET may investigate, among others, the following practices:

2.1. Fabrication

The creation or invention of data, information, participants, interviews, experiments, observations, results, documents, or evidence that did not actually exist or were not obtained through the reported research.

2.2. Falsification

The manipulation, alteration, omission, or selective presentation of data, methods, procedures, equipment, images, results, or information in a manner that produces a false or misleading representation of the research.

2.3. Plagiarism

The use of texts, ideas, concepts, data, methods, images, results, or other intellectual contributions belonging to third parties without appropriate attribution of authorship or source.

2.4. Self-plagiarism and Inappropriate Text Recycling

Substantial reuse of previously published material by the same author without adequate transparency, citation, or justification, particularly when presented as original work.

2.5. Redundant or Duplicate Publication

Substantial publication of the same work, data, or results in more than one journal or publication venue without appropriate disclosure, justification, and cross-reference.

2.6. Image Manipulation

Inappropriate alteration of photographs, scientific images, graphs, records, maps, or other visual representations with the potential to modify, fabricate, conceal, or distort scientific evidence.

2.7. Citation Manipulation

The inclusion of scientifically irrelevant references for the purpose of artificially increasing citations to particular authors, articles, journals, institutions, or research groups.

2.8. Peer Review Manipulation

Any fraudulent attempt to interfere with the peer-review process, including:

  • nomination of fictitious reviewers;
  • use of false identities;
  • creation of fraudulent accounts;
  • improper interference with reviewer selection;
  • collusion between authors and reviewers;
  • provision of false contact information;
  • attempts to discover reviewer identities improperly;
  • coordinated networks intended to manipulate editorial processes.

The COPE Retraction Guidelines recognize a compromised or manipulated peer-review process as a circumstance that may justify retraction.

2.9. Authorship Irregularities

Authorship irregularities include:

  • honorary authorship;
  • gift authorship;
  • ghost authorship;
  • purchase or sale of authorship;
  • inclusion of persons without sufficient scientific contribution;
  • exclusion of researchers who made substantial contributions;
  • improper alteration of authorship during or after peer review.

The CNPq Research Integrity Guidelines require authorship to reflect effective and significant contributions to scientific work.

2.10. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Deliberate omission of financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, or commercial relationships that may significantly influence the research, its interpretation, or its editorial evaluation.

2.11. Unethical Research

This includes research conducted in violation of applicable ethical standards, particularly research involving:

  • human participants;
  • children and adolescents;
  • vulnerable populations;
  • personal or sensitive data;
  • animals;
  • absence of required ethical approval;
  • absence or irregularity of informed consent;
  • violation of privacy or confidentiality.

2.12. Misuse of Artificial Intelligence

Depending on severity, potential integrity violations include:

  • fabrication of references using AI;
  • fabrication or falsification of data;
  • artificial creation of participants, interviews, or evidence;
  • misleading generation or manipulation of scientific images;
  • failure to disclose relevant AI use when disclosure is required;
  • use of AI to conceal plagiarism;
  • presentation of AI-generated content as human authorship contrary to journal policies;
  • insertion of confidential third-party manuscripts into AI systems without authorization.

The CNPq Research Integrity Guidelines establish transparency requirements concerning the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in scientific activities.

 

3. Scientific Error Is Not Necessarily Research Misconduct

IJAIET distinguishes an honest error from research misconduct.

A methodological, statistical, typographical, interpretative, or calculation error may occur without an intention to deceive. Its existence alone does not necessarily constitute fraud or misconduct.

However, a serious error may justify retraction, even in the absence of misconduct, when it substantially compromises the reliability of the results or conclusions.

The COPE Retraction Guidelines recognize that unreliable findings may result from misconduct as well as major errors.

Therefore:

Retraction does not automatically imply fraud or misconduct.

 

4. Circumstances That May Lead to Retraction

IJAIET may retract a publication when there is sufficient evidence that:

  1. its findings or conclusions are substantially unreliable;
  2. fabrication or falsification of data occurred;
  3. relevant manipulation of images or results occurred;
  4. substantial plagiarism occurred;
  5. duplicate or redundant publication occurred without adequate justification;
  6. data, images, or materials were used without required authorization;
  7. significant copyright or intellectual property violations occurred;
  8. serious legal problems affect the publication;
  9. the research was conducted unethically;
  10. the article was published following a compromised or manipulated peer-review process;
  11. relevant undisclosed conflicts of interest substantially affected the interpretation or evaluation of the work;
  12. participants, interviews, documents, or evidence were fabricated;
  13. serious authorship irregularities compromised the legitimacy of the publication;
  14. fraudulent use of Artificial Intelligence occurred;
  15. another serious integrity violation makes the article, or a substantial part of it, unreliable.

 

5. Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern, and Removal

IJAIET will adopt a measure proportionate to the nature and severity of the problem.

5.1. Correction or Erratum

A correction will be used when the identified problem does not substantially invalidate the results or conclusions.

Corrections may address errors involving:

  • names;
  • affiliations;
  • metadata;
  • tables;
  • figures;
  • specific data;
  • references;
  • methodological information;
  • declarations;
  • other elements that can be corrected while preserving the essential validity of the work.

5.2. Retraction

Retraction will be used when problems substantially compromise the reliability, validity, legitimacy, or integrity of the publication.

5.3. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when there are credible indications of serious problems but the investigation has not yet been completed or sufficient evidence is not yet available for a definitive decision.

Its purpose is to alert readers that the reliability of the article is under question.

5.4. Article Removal

Simple deletion of an article from the editorial record is not the normal procedure for retraction.

As a rule, a retracted article will remain available to preserve transparency and the history of the scholarly record, clearly identified as RETRACTED.

Complete removal will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, particularly where required because of:

  • a court order;
  • serious privacy risks;
  • unlawful disclosure of personal data;
  • significant health or safety risks;
  • manifestly illegal content;
  • other exceptional legal or ethical circumstances.

 

6. Who May Report Suspected Misconduct

Concerns or allegations may be submitted by:

  • authors;
  • reviewers;
  • editors;
  • readers;
  • researchers;
  • institutions;
  • universities;
  • funding agencies;
  • Research Ethics Committees;
  • public authorities;
  • other legitimately interested parties.

Reports should, whenever possible, contain:

  • identification of the article;
  • an objective description of the suspected irregularity;
  • available evidence;
  • documents or sources that permit verification.

Good-faith reports will be handled with appropriate confidentiality and protection against retaliation, subject to applicable legal and procedural requirements.

 

7. Principles Governing Investigations

Every IJAIET investigation shall observe:

I – impartiality;

II – confidentiality;

III – presumption of innocence during the investigation;

IV – the right to respond and provide explanations;

V – prevention and disclosure of conflicts of interest;

VI – documentation of evidence;

VII – proportionality;

VIII – editorial independence;

IX – protection of the scholarly record;

X – reasonable promptness compatible with rigorous investigation;

XI – transparency of the final decision to the extent necessary to correct the scientific literature.

 

8. Investigation Procedure – Step by Step

Step 1 – Receipt and Registration

Every allegation will be confidentially registered by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.

The journal will identify:

  • the article concerned;
  • the nature of the allegation;
  • parties involved;
  • evidence submitted;
  • possible conflicts of interest.

Step 2 – Preliminary Assessment

The Editorial Team will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the allegation:

  • has a minimum factual basis;
  • concerns the article or editorial process;
  • contains verifiable evidence;
  • may be resolved through a correction;
  • requires a formal investigation.

Whenever feasible, IJAIET will seek to complete this preliminary editorial assessment within 30 days, using the FAPESP framework as an institutional reference.

Step 3 – Preservation of Evidence

IJAIET may preserve and organize:

  • manuscript versions;
  • submitted files;
  • similarity reports;
  • peer-review reports;
  • editorial correspondence;
  • authorship declarations;
  • CRediT statements;
  • supplementary data;
  • images;
  • submission records;
  • ethics documentation;
  • AI-use statements;
  • metadata;
  • other relevant evidence.

Step 4 – Notification of Authors

When sufficient grounds exist, the corresponding author and, where necessary, all authors will be formally notified.

The communication will objectively specify:

  • the nature of the allegation;
  • matters requiring clarification;
  • documents or information requested;
  • deadline for response.

Authors will have an opportunity to submit explanations, documents, and evidence in their defense.

Step 5 – Preventive Editorial Suspension

If the article is still under consideration, the editorial process may be temporarily suspended.

If it has already been published and there is a significant risk to the reliability of the scholarly record, IJAIET may publish an Expression of Concern while the investigation is underway.

Step 6 – Formal Investigation

Where a formal investigation is required, the Editor-in-Chief may establish an editorial committee or investigation group whose members have no relevant conflicts of interest.

When necessary, IJAIET may consult:

  • external subject-matter experts;
  • statisticians;
  • methodological experts;
  • research integrity specialists;
  • Research Ethics Committees;
  • authors' institutions;
  • funding agencies;
  • legal experts;
  • image or data specialists;
  • other appropriate professionals.

Using the FAPESP framework as a reference, IJAIET will seek, whenever feasible, to complete a formal investigation within 90 days, unless the complexity of the case requires additional time.

Step 7 – Institutional Communication

IJAIET does not replace universities, funding agencies, Research Ethics Committees, or public authorities in investigations that fall outside its editorial competence.

Where appropriate, evidence may be referred to:

  • authors' institutions;
  • the institution responsible for the research;
  • Research Ethics Committees;
  • funding agencies;
  • CNPq;
  • FAPESP;
  • CAPES;
  • other competent authorities.

Step 8 – Investigation Report

The editorial investigation should result in a report containing, as applicable:

  1. description of the allegation;
  2. documents examined;
  3. statements from the parties involved;
  4. evidence;
  5. technical assessment;
  6. conclusions;
  7. classification of the irregularity;
  8. impact on the reliability of the article;
  9. editorial recommendation;
  10. additional measures, where necessary.

Step 9 – Right to Respond

Before a final decision, authors may be informed of the relevant findings and provided a reasonable opportunity to respond.

An author's disagreement does not prevent retraction when sufficient evidence demonstrates that correction of the scholarly record is necessary.

Step 10 – Editorial Decision

Following assessment of the evidence, IJAIET may decide to:

a) close the case without further action;

b) issue guidance or a warning;

c) publish a correction;

d) publish an erratum;

e) correct authorship when ethically and editorially justified;

f) publish an Expression of Concern;

g) retract the publication;

h) reject the manuscript;

i) notify relevant institutions;

j) impose editorial sanctions;

k) adopt other measures necessary to protect research integrity.

 

9. Retraction Requested by Authors

Authors may request retraction of their own article when they identify a serious error or other problem that substantially compromises its reliability.

IJAIET considers voluntary and transparent disclosure of scientific error to be consistent with responsible research conduct.

Where there is no evidence of fraud or misconduct, the retraction notice should make clear that the retraction resulted from an error, avoiding an inappropriate implication of misconduct.

 

10. Retraction Without Authors' Consent

Agreement by all authors is not an absolute requirement for retraction.

Where the evidence demonstrates that retraction is necessary to preserve the integrity of scientific literature, IJAIET may retract the article even when:

  • one or more authors disagree;
  • authors fail to respond;
  • not all authors can be located;
  • there is a dispute among the authors.

 

11. Publication of the Retraction Notice

In accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, a retraction notice should:

  1. be published in a clear and readily identifiable manner;
  2. explicitly include Retraction in its title;
  3. unequivocally identify the retracted article;
  4. be electronically linked to the original article;
  5. indicate who is retracting the article;
  6. objectively explain the reason for the retraction;
  7. distinguish, whenever possible, error from misconduct;
  8. avoid defamatory, offensive, or unnecessarily punitive language;
  9. be published as promptly as reasonably possible following the decision;
  10. remain Open Access.

 

12. Treatment of the Retracted Article

As a general rule, the retracted article will remain on the journal's website.

However:

  • all electronic versions must clearly indicate RETRACTED status;
  • the retraction notice will be linked to the article;
  • metadata will be updated whenever technically possible;
  • the DOI and other persistent identifiers will be preserved for traceability;
  • the publication will not be silently deleted or replaced;
  • relevant indexing and abstracting services may be notified.

This procedure preserves transparency, traceability, and the historical integrity of the scholarly record.

 

13. Possible Editorial Sanctions

A distinction must be made between retraction and sanction.

Retraction is intended to correct the scientific literature. Sanctions, where appropriate, address proven violations of editorial policies or research misconduct.

Depending on the nature, severity, intentionality, recurrence, and impact of the conduct, IJAIET may adopt one or more of the following measures:

  1. formal warning;
  2. mandatory request for clarification;
  3. rejection of the manuscript;
  4. termination of the review process;
  5. correction or erratum;
  6. retraction;
  7. notification of the author's institution;
  8. notification of the Research Ethics Committee;
  9. notification of the funding agency;
  10. notification of CNPq, FAPESP, or another relevant institution;
  11. temporary restriction on new submissions;
  12. temporary prohibition from acting as a reviewer;
  13. temporary prohibition from holding an editorial role;
  14. invalidation of a peer review obtained through fraud;
  15. other proportionate editorial measures necessary to protect research integrity.

Any sanctions belonging to the jurisdiction of CNPq, FAPESP, universities, funding agencies, professional bodies, or public authorities are not imposed by IJAIET on behalf of those institutions. IJAIET may report a case to the competent institution, which will determine any institutional, administrative, ethical, or legal consequences within its own authority.

 

14. Severity and Proportionality

In determining editorial measures, IJAIET will consider:

  • nature of the irregularity;
  • presence or absence of intent;
  • extent of the problem;
  • impact on results;
  • impact on conclusions;
  • risks to participants or third parties;
  • impact on scientific literature;
  • cooperation of those involved;
  • attempts at concealment;
  • recurrence;
  • evidence of organized fraud;
  • manipulation of editorial processes;
  • legal, ethical, or social consequences.

IJAIET will not automatically apply the same measure to every irregularity.

Honest errors, questionable research practices, and deliberate misconduct must be assessed distinctly and proportionately.

 

15. Confidentiality of Investigations

Investigations will be conducted with the highest degree of confidentiality compatible with a fair and rigorous investigation.

Information concerning complainants, authors, reviewers, documents, and evidence will only be shared when necessary for the investigation or when required by law or ethical obligations.

 

16. Documentation and Record Preservation

IJAIET will maintain records relating to integrity investigations in accordance with its document management policies and applicable legal obligations.

Records may include:

  • allegations;
  • communications;
  • evidence;
  • technical opinions;
  • authors' responses;
  • decisions;
  • reports;
  • institutional documents;
  • original and corrected versions;
  • retraction or correction notices.

Document preservation supports traceability, transparency, editorial memory, and auditability.

 

17. Cooperation With Institutions and Authorities

IJAIET recognizes that assessing the reliability of an article and formally investigating the conduct of a researcher are related but distinct activities.

The journal has authority over its editorial record, including rejection, correction, expression of concern, and retraction.

Research institutions, universities, Ethics Committees, funding agencies, and competent authorities may have broader jurisdiction to investigate:

  • data fabrication;
  • falsification;
  • research ethics violations;
  • misuse of funding;
  • institutional misconduct;
  • administrative or legal responsibilities.

Where necessary, IJAIET will cooperate with these institutions, subject to confidentiality, applicable law, and editorial independence.

 

18. Non-Retaliation and Good-Faith Reporting

IJAIET does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who report, in good faith, substantiated concerns regarding research integrity.

Likewise, integrity procedures must not be used for:

  • personal persecution;
  • knowingly false allegations;
  • intimidation of researchers;
  • academic disputes without an ethical basis;
  • improper attempts to influence editorial decisions.

Manifestly malicious allegations may themselves be assessed according to their seriousness.

 

19. Authors' Responsibilities After Publication

Authors remain responsible for the integrity of their work after publication.

If authors identify a relevant error, ethical problem, or other circumstance that may compromise the reliability of an article, they must promptly notify IJAIET.

Authors' cooperation in correcting the scientific literature will be considered relevant in the journal's assessment of the case.

 

20. IJAIET's Editorial Responsibility

IJAIET undertakes to:

  • assess allegations impartially;
  • protect confidentiality;
  • prevent conflicts of interest;
  • provide involved parties with an opportunity to respond;
  • distinguish honest errors from misconduct;
  • seek evidence before reaching conclusions;
  • correct the scientific literature when necessary;
  • publish retractions transparently;
  • notify institutions where appropriate;
  • preserve editorial independence;
  • refrain from using retraction as a means of punishment or public humiliation;
  • periodically update this policy in accordance with evolving international standards.

The fundamental objective is to preserve the reliability of scientific knowledge and the integrity of the scholarly record published by IJAIET.

 

21. Institutional References and Access Links

COPE – Retraction Guidelines

COPE – Retraction Guidelines – Full Document

COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics

FAPESP – Good Scientific Practices

FAPESP – Code of Good Scientific Practice

FAPESP – Research Integrity

FAPESP – Code of Ethics

CNPq – Research Integrity Guidelines

CNPq – Policy on Integrity in Scientific Activity

CNPq – Commission on Integrity in Scientific Activity: Documents

Council of Science Editors – CSE

CSE – Instructions to Authors Checklist: Research Misconduct, Corrections and Retractions

UNESCO – Open Science

UNESCO – Recommendation on Open Science

UNESCO – Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Copyright Statement

© IJAIET – International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Educational Technologies and Teacher Education / Editora Ibero-Americana de Educação. All rights reserved regarding the wording, organization, systematization, and institutional presentation of these editorial policies, without prejudice to third-party rights and content derived from duly identified external sources.

The full or substantial reproduction, adaptation, or institutional use of these texts by third parties requires prior authorization, except within the limits legally permitted for quotation, academic reference, and other uses authorized by applicable law.

 

The Editors