RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT POLICY

Environmental and Agriculture Management (EAM) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, transparency, and credibility of scholarly research published in environmental and agricultural sciences. The journal recognizes that responsible research conduct and ethical publication practices are essential for advancing scientific knowledge and preserving public confidence in academic publications.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for identifying, reporting, assessing, and addressing suspected research and publication misconduct involving manuscripts submitted to EAM or articles already published by the journal. The policy applies to authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, editorial personnel, and other individuals involved in the journal's scholarly publishing activities. It covers potential misconduct arising during research design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication evaluation.

Types of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following practices.

1. Plagiarism and Inappropriate Content Reuse

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, images, methodologies, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution. EAM prohibits plagiarism, including substantial unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted materials, and misleading reuse of previously published content.

Inappropriate reuse of an author's own previously published material may also constitute redundant publication or unacceptable text recycling when the earlier source is not properly disclosed. Manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software. However, similarity scores alone do not establish plagiarism. Editorial assessments must consider the nature, extent, context, and attribution of any identified overlap.

2. Data Fabrication and Falsification

Data fabrication involves inventing research observations, measurements, experimental results, survey responses, laboratory findings, or other information and presenting them as genuine research evidence.

Data falsification involves manipulating, modifying, selectively excluding, or misrepresenting research materials, methods, observations, or results in ways that distort the scientific record.

Examples relevant to EAM include inventing field observations, laboratory measurements, experimental replications, soil or plant analytical results, environmental monitoring records, or survey responses; altering reported treatment outcomes; and selectively modifying analytical results to support a preferred conclusion.

Authors must accurately report research procedures, measurements, observations, statistical analyses, and limitations. All conclusions must be supported by reliable and verifiable evidence.

3. Image, Figure, and Research Material Manipulation

EAM prohibits inappropriate manipulation of scientific images, photographs, maps, graphs, laboratory outputs, and other research materials when such modification misrepresents research findings.

Prohibited practices may include undisclosed alteration of experimental images, inappropriate removal or duplication of image elements, misleading graphical modifications, and fabrication or falsification of visual research evidence.

Legitimate adjustments intended to improve clarity or presentation are permissible when they do not alter the underlying scientific information. Relevant image processing, data transformations, and visualization procedures must be transparently described when necessary for proper interpretation.

4. Citation Manipulation

Citations must be relevant, accurate, and justified by the scholarly content of a manuscript.

EAM prohibits citation practices intended to improperly influence citation counts, journal metrics, or the perceived scholarly significance of particular publications.

Unethical practices include coercive citation requests, citation cartels, unnecessary self-citation, deliberately misleading references, and the inclusion of irrelevant publications solely to manipulate bibliometric indicators.

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to cite specific publications unless the references are scientifically relevant and reasonably necessary for improving the manuscript.

5. Ethical Violations in Research Involving Humans, Animals, or the Environment

Research involving human participants, animals, biological materials, environmental sampling, or other ethically regulated activities must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and recognized ethical standards. Where required, authors must obtain appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, permits, or other relevant authorization before conducting the research.

Misrepresentation or fabrication of ethical approval, informed consent, research permits, or regulatory authorization constitutes a serious ethical concern. EAM may request supporting documentation when the ethical basis of a submitted or published study is questioned.

6. Misuse of Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Technologies

EAM recognizes that artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies may support scholarly activities when used responsibly, transparently, and in accordance with the journal's applicable AI policy. Potential misconduct includes generating fabricated research data, inventing references, presenting unsupported AI-generated findings as verified evidence, creating misleading research images, concealing substantive AI use when disclosure is required, and exposing confidential manuscripts or research information to unauthorized AI systems.

AI systems cannot be recognized as authors or assume responsibility for scientific content. Human authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, reliability, and ethical integrity of their work. AI-detection results alone will not be considered conclusive evidence of misconduct. Any concerns must be evaluated using appropriate contextual information and supporting evidence.

Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Any author, reviewer, editor, reader, researcher, institution, or other concerned party may report suspected research or publication misconduct relating to manuscripts submitted to EAM or articles published by the journal.

Reports should be submitted in good faith and supported, where possible, by relevant and verifiable information.

A report should preferably include the manuscript title or published article reference, a clear description of the concern, supporting evidence, relevant source materials, and any additional information that may assist the editorial assessment.

Reports may be submitted through the journal's official Contact page.

EAM may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable evidence. The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the confidentiality of reporting individuals, subject to applicable legal requirements and the practical needs of an investigation.

Investigation and Handling of Allegations

EAM applies the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, proportionality, and procedural transparency when assessing allegations of research or publication misconduct.

1. Notification and Opportunity to Respond

When an allegation warrants further examination, the editorial team will communicate the relevant concerns to the individuals involved and provide a reasonable opportunity to submit an explanation or supporting evidence.

The editorial team may request research records, original data, laboratory documentation, ethical approval information, analytical procedures, image files, authorship documentation, or other relevant materials necessary to clarify the concern.

Explanations and supporting documentation will be evaluated objectively. Additional clarification may be requested when the information provided is incomplete or inconsistent.

2. Further Editorial Assessment

When the information provided does not adequately resolve the concern, the handling editor may seek additional expert assessment or request further verification. For manuscripts still under consideration, the editorial process may be temporarily suspended while a serious ethical concern is examined.

The journal will avoid reaching premature conclusions and will distinguish between confirmed misconduct, substantiated reliability concerns, unresolved allegations, and errors that can be corrected without affecting the overall integrity of the research.

Post-Publication Investigation and Editorial Actions

EAM is committed to safeguarding the integrity and reliability of the published scientific record. Allegations concerning published articles will be evaluated regardless of when the article was published. For post-publication concerns, the Editor-in-Chief coordinates the journal's response and may assign an independent Editorial Board member to conduct the substantive editorial assessment. Relevant findings may be reviewed in consultation with appropriately qualified experts or research institutions.

Depending on the nature and outcome of the assessment, EAM may take the following actions.

1. Correction

A Correction may be issued when an identifiable error or omission affects a published article but does not fundamentally invalidate its principal findings and conclusions.

Examples may include errors in figures, tables, data presentation, author information, methodological descriptions, or other material requiring clarification.

The correction notice will identify the affected article, explain the relevant changes, and be linked to the original publication.

2. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial questions arise regarding the reliability or integrity of a published article, but the available evidence is insufficient to justify a definitive editorial conclusion.

This measure may be appropriate when an institutional investigation is ongoing, significant concerns remain unresolved, or the journal considers it necessary to alert readers to potentially unreliable published information.

An Expression of Concern does not automatically establish that misconduct has occurred. The journal will review the status of the concern when relevant additional evidence becomes available and may subsequently issue a correction, retraction, or other appropriate notice.

3. Retraction

A Retraction may be issued when a published article contains findings or conclusions that are seriously unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, major errors, plagiarism, unethical research practices, or other substantial problems affecting the validity or integrity of the publication. Retraction decisions will be guided by the relevant COPE Retraction Guidelines and the available scientific and ethical evidence.

The principal purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record and inform readers that the findings should not be relied upon. Retraction is not intended primarily as a punishment. A retraction notice will clearly identify the affected publication, explain the grounds for retraction, and be linked to the original article.

Whenever practicable, the retracted article will remain accessible as part of the scholarly record and be clearly identified as retracted rather than silently removed.

Reporting Contact

Concerns or allegations of research and publication misconduct may be submitted through the official editorial contact channel of Environmental and Agriculture Management (EAM).

Journal: Environmental and Agriculture Management (EAM)

Publisher: Universitas Islam Madura, Indonesia

Managing Unit: Institute for Research and Community Service (LPPM), Universitas Islam Madura

Editorial Office: Pamekasan, East Java, Indonesia

Official Contact: https://journal.uim.ac.id/index.php/eam/about/contact

All reports should clearly identify the relevant manuscript or published article, explain the concern, and provide available supporting information. EAM will assess each report in accordance with the principles of research integrity, procedural fairness, and responsible scholarly publishing.