Allegations of Misconduct

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and transparency of the scholarly record. The journal expects all authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants in the publication process to adhere to high standards of research and publication ethics.

MAJIS takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether concerns arise before or after publication. The journal maintains procedures for receiving, assessing, investigating, and responding to allegations in a fair, impartial, confidential, and timely manner.

This policy has been developed with reference to the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly the COPE Core Practice on Allegations of Misconduct. COPE states that journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations regardless of how they are brought to the journal's attention, should take allegations seriously at both pre-publication and post-publication stages, and should establish procedures for handling concerns raised by whistleblowers.

This policy is intended to provide a transparent framework for addressing suspected misconduct while respecting the rights, confidentiality, and legitimate interests of all parties involved.

MAJIS does not represent this policy as COPE approval, certification, or endorsement. Rather, the policy has been developed with reference to relevant COPE principles, guidance, and flowcharts.

2. Description

2.1 Definition of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct refers to conduct that violates established principles of research integrity or publication ethics and may compromise the reliability, originality, credibility, or integrity of the scholarly record.

Misconduct may occur during the research process, manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, publication, or after publication.

Misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following forms.

2.2 Fabrication

Fabrication is the invention of data, observations, research materials, participants, results, or other elements of research and reporting them as if they were genuine.

Examples may include:

  • inventing interview participants or quotations;

  • inventing archival or documentary sources;

  • creating data that were not actually collected;

  • reporting experiments, observations, or analyses that were never conducted; or

  • presenting invented research results as genuine findings.

2.3 Falsification

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, processes, data, sources, evidence, or results, or selectively omitting information, in a manner that misrepresents the research record.

Examples may include:

  • altering or selectively manipulating research data;

  • intentionally omitting relevant findings to create a misleading conclusion;

  • manipulating research materials or analytical procedures;

  • misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants or sources; or

  • presenting an inaccurate account of the research methodology.

2.4 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the appropriation or presentation of another person's words, ideas, arguments, data, research materials, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgement.

Plagiarism may involve:

  • direct copying without appropriate quotation and citation;

  • inappropriate paraphrasing without attribution;

  • presenting another person's ideas or arguments as one's own;

  • copying substantial portions of another work;

  • using translated material without appropriate acknowledgement; or

  • presenting another person's research materials or intellectual contribution without credit.

Plagiarism may also involve inappropriate reuse of the author's own previously published material where such reuse creates a misleading impression of originality.

Cases involving plagiarism will be assessed according to their nature, extent, context, intent where ascertainable, and effect on the integrity of the scholarly record.

2.5 Redundant, Duplicate, or Overlapping Publication

Redundant or duplicate publication occurs when substantially the same research, argument, evidence, or scholarly content is published or submitted more than once without appropriate disclosure or justification.

This may include:

  • submitting substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal;

  • publishing substantially overlapping articles without appropriate disclosure;

  • dividing research into multiple publications in a manner that misleads readers about the originality or completeness of the work; or

  • republishing substantial material without transparent acknowledgement and appropriate justification.

Such cases will be considered in conjunction with the journal's policies on plagiarism, text recycling, copyright, and intellectual property.

2.6 Authorship and Contributorship Misconduct

Authorship misconduct may include:

  • guest or honorary authorship, in which an individual is listed as an author despite not making a qualifying contribution;

  • gift authorship, in which authorship is given as a favour or inappropriately;

  • ghost authorship, in which a person who made a substantial qualifying contribution is omitted;

  • inappropriate exclusion of a legitimate contributor;

  • submission of a manuscript without the knowledge or consent of all listed authors;

  • inappropriate changes to the author list; or

  • misrepresentation of individual contributions.

Authorship disputes are addressed according to the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy. Where a dispute requires investigation beyond the journal's editorial remit, MAJIS may refer the matter to the relevant institution(s).

2.7 Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation includes practices intended to improperly influence citation metrics, distort the scholarly record, or misrepresent the importance or relevance of cited work.

Examples may include:

  • coercive citation practices;

  • requesting unnecessary citations solely to increase citation counts;

  • coordinated citation arrangements intended to manipulate metrics;

  • excessive self-citation without legitimate scholarly justification; or

  • inappropriate citation of unrelated publications.

Authors, reviewers, and editors must recommend or use citations based on genuine scholarly relevance rather than personal, institutional, or metric-related interests.

2.8 Undisclosed or Improperly Managed Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest may arise when financial, personal, professional, institutional, academic, or other interests could reasonably be perceived as influencing scholarly or editorial judgment.

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict may constitute publication misconduct when the omission materially affects the transparency or integrity of the publication process.

Conflicts of interest are handled according to the journal's Conflicts of Interest Policy.

2.9 Breaches of Research Ethics

Research misconduct may include violations of applicable ethical requirements for research involving:

  • human participants;

  • interviews or identifiable individuals;

  • personal or sensitive information;

  • vulnerable populations;

  • confidential or restricted materials; or

  • animals, where applicable.

Where research requires ethical approval, the journal may request evidence of appropriate approval or other relevant documentation.

2.10 Peer-Review Manipulation

Peer-review manipulation involves deliberate attempts to undermine, deceive, or improperly influence the peer-review process.

Examples may include:

  • submitting fabricated or misleading reviewer identities;

  • providing false reviewer contact information;

  • attempting to interfere improperly with reviewers;

  • manipulating reviewer recommendations;

  • creating fraudulent review reports;

  • using third parties to generate fraudulent reviews;

  • submitting manuscripts through coordinated schemes intended to circumvent editorial assessment; or

  • other systematic attempts to manipulate editorial or peer-review decisions.

Where peer-review manipulation is suspected, MAJIS may investigate relevant editorial records, reviewer information, correspondence, and other available evidence.

2.11 Image, Audio, Visual, or Documentary Manipulation

Where manuscripts contain images, audio materials, visual materials, archival reproductions, or other documentary evidence, inappropriate manipulation may constitute misconduct when it materially misrepresents the underlying evidence.

The journal may request original or unprocessed materials when necessary to assess the integrity of the submitted or published work.

2.12 Misuse of Confidential Information

Misconduct may include inappropriate disclosure or use of confidential information obtained through:

  • peer review;

  • editorial assessment;

  • unpublished manuscripts;

  • confidential correspondence;

  • research participants or sources; or

  • other privileged scholarly communications.

Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished information obtained through the publication process for personal or professional advantage.

2.13 Misconduct by Editors, Reviewers, or Other Participants

Allegations of misconduct are not limited to authors.

MAJIS may investigate concerns involving:

  • editors;

  • editorial-board members;

  • reviewers;

  • guest editors;

  • editorial staff;

  • authors;

  • research institutions; or

  • other individuals involved in the publication process.

Where an allegation concerns an individual responsible for handling the case, that individual should not participate in the investigation or decision-making process concerning the allegation.

2.14 Allegations Raised Before and After Publication

MAJIS considers allegations concerning both unpublished and published manuscripts.

For unpublished manuscripts, possible outcomes may include additional investigation, requests for clarification, rejection, withdrawal, or referral to an appropriate institution.

For published articles, the journal may take corrective action to protect the integrity of the scholarly record, including publication of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction where appropriate.

COPE emphasizes that journals should take allegations seriously at both pre-publication and post-publication stages and should have procedures for correcting the scholarly record when necessary.

3. Policy

3.1 Commitment to Investigate

MAJIS will take credible allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously and will assess them according to this policy.

The journal will seek to ensure that allegations are handled consistently, proportionately, fairly, and without inappropriate bias.

An allegation does not by itself establish misconduct. The journal will assess the available evidence before reaching an editorial conclusion.

3.2 Fairness and Objectivity

MAJIS will seek to conduct investigations objectively and fairly.

The person or persons whose conduct is being questioned will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before a final editorial conclusion is reached, subject to circumstances in which immediate action is necessary to protect the scholarly record or investigation.

The journal will not make a finding of misconduct solely because an allegation has been made.

3.3 Confidentiality

Information concerning an ongoing investigation will be treated confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information may be shared with:

  • editors responsible for the investigation;

  • relevant editorial or ethics advisers;

  • authors or contributors whose response is required;

  • research institutions;

  • funding bodies;

  • other journals where relevant;

  • legal advisers where necessary; or

  • other appropriate parties with a legitimate need for the information.

Confidentiality may also be limited by applicable law, institutional procedures, or the need to conduct a fair investigation.

3.4 Whistleblowers

MAJIS accepts concerns raised by whistleblowers and does not require the reporting person to be personally affected by the alleged misconduct.

A whistleblower may raise a concern anonymously. However, anonymous allegations should provide sufficient specific and verifiable information for the journal to assess the concern.

The journal will not intentionally disclose the identity of an anonymous whistleblower unless disclosure is necessary because of legal requirements or other compelling circumstances.

MAJIS will not tolerate retaliation by the journal against a person who raises a concern in good faith.

However, knowingly submitting false, malicious, or deliberately misleading allegations may itself constitute inappropriate conduct and may be addressed separately.

COPE guidance recommends that journals establish clear procedures for responding to whistleblowers and distinguish between specific, evidence-based concerns that can be investigated and vague allegations for which there is insufficient information to proceed.

3.5 Good-Faith Reporting

MAJIS encourages concerns to be raised in good faith and with sufficient information to permit meaningful assessment.

A person raising a concern is not required to prove misconduct conclusively. The responsibility of the complainant is to provide the information reasonably available to them; the journal determines whether further investigation is warranted.

3.6 Cooperation with Institutions

Where an allegation concerns the conduct of research rather than solely the publication process, MAJIS may contact the relevant author's institution or other responsible organization.

Research institutions generally have the authority and responsibility to investigate allegations concerning research conduct. The journal's role is to protect the integrity of the publication process and scholarly record.

MAJIS may therefore:

  • notify an institution of a serious concern;

  • request clarification or the outcome of an institutional investigation;

  • provide relevant editorial records where appropriate;

  • cooperate with legitimate institutional investigations; and

  • take editorial action based on reliable evidence obtained from an institutional investigation.

COPE guidance specifically encourages cooperation between journals and research institutions in research-integrity cases and recommends that journals cooperate with institutional investigations and make appropriate post-publication amendments when evidence establishes that published research is unreliable.

3.7 Cooperation with Other Journals

Where an allegation may affect publications in another journal or publisher, MAJIS may communicate with the relevant journal or publisher where there is a legitimate publication-ethics reason to do so.

Such communication will be limited to information reasonably necessary to address the integrity concern and will be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

3.8 Interim Measures

Where a serious concern arises about a published article but an investigation has not yet been completed, MAJIS may take appropriate interim measures.

Depending on the circumstances, these may include:

  • placing an editorial note on the article;

  • issuing an Expression of Concern;

  • temporarily suspending consideration of related manuscripts;

  • requesting clarification from authors;

  • contacting an institution or other relevant body; or

  • taking other proportionate measures necessary to protect readers and the scholarly record.

An interim measure does not necessarily constitute a finding of misconduct.

3.9 Correcting the Scholarly Record

If an investigation establishes that a published article contains an error, unreliable information, or other issue affecting the integrity of the scholarly record, MAJIS will consider the appropriate corrective action.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may publish:

  • a correction;

  • a corrigendum or erratum;

  • an editorial note;

  • an Expression of Concern; or

  • a retraction.

The decision will depend on the nature and seriousness of the problem and its effect on the reliability of the published record.

3.10 No Automatic Punishment

Editorial actions are intended primarily to protect the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record and publication process.

MAJIS does not treat correction, retraction, rejection, or other editorial action as a substitute for institutional disciplinary procedures.

Where appropriate, disciplinary or employment-related consequences should be determined by the relevant institution or competent authority.

3.11 Legal and Professional Advice

For cases involving substantial legal, contractual, privacy, intellectual-property, defamation, or other complex issues, MAJIS may seek advice from the publisher, the relevant institution, or qualified legal or professional advisers.

The journal will not make legal determinations beyond its editorial responsibility.

3.12 Referral to COPE

Where a case is unusually complex and cannot reasonably be resolved using the journal's policies and relevant COPE guidance, MAJIS may seek appropriate publication-ethics advice.

Where a case is referred to COPE or another advisory body, information will be anonymised where appropriate and in accordance with the relevant procedures.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Reporting an Allegation

Allegations of misconduct should be submitted in writing to the journal's editorial office or Editor-in-Chief using the official contact information published on the MAJIS website.

A report should, where possible, include:

  1. the title of the manuscript or published article;

  2. the manuscript or article identification information, where available;

  3. a clear description of the alleged misconduct;

  4. the individuals or publications involved, where known;

  5. relevant dates;

  6. supporting documents, data, correspondence, or other evidence; and

  7. an explanation of why the information indicates a possible breach of research or publication ethics.

Reports should be sufficiently specific to allow the journal to understand and assess the concern.

Contact: [INSERT OFFICIAL MAJIS ETHICS/EDITORIAL CONTACT]

4.2 Allegations Submitted Anonymously

Anonymous reports will be considered where they contain sufficient specific and verifiable information.

The journal may be unable to investigate an allegation when:

  • the allegation is entirely vague;

  • no evidence or specific information is provided;

  • the journal cannot identify the relevant manuscript or publication; or

  • the concern cannot reasonably be assessed from the available information.

Where the reporting person remains anonymous, the journal may be unable to provide detailed information about the investigation or outcome.

COPE's whistleblower flowchart recommends requesting additional details when a direct allegation lacks sufficient evidence and proceeding with an investigation when specific and detailed evidence is provided.

4.3 Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will conduct an initial assessment.

The initial assessment will consider:

  • whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy;

  • whether the allegation contains sufficient information to warrant investigation;

  • whether the concern relates to an unpublished manuscript or published article;

  • whether there is an immediate risk to the integrity of the scholarly record;

  • whether a conflict of interest exists for the editor handling the case;

  • whether an institution or another journal should be contacted; and

  • which COPE guidance or flowchart may be relevant.

The initial assessment does not constitute a final determination of misconduct.

4.4 Conflicts of Interest in the Investigation

An editor who has a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or other conflict of interest in a case should not lead or make the final decision concerning that case.

Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint another qualified editor or independent adviser to handle the matter.

If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility for the investigation should be transferred to an appropriately independent senior editor, editorial-board member, publisher representative, or other designated person.

4.5 Preliminary Inquiry

Where appropriate, the journal may request clarification or additional evidence before opening a formal investigation.

The journal may contact:

  • the corresponding author;

  • other authors;

  • reviewers;

  • editors;

  • institutions;

  • research organizations;

  • funding bodies;

  • other journals; or

  • relevant experts.

The journal will avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential information during this stage.

4.6 Formal Investigation

When the available information provides a reasonable basis for further investigation, MAJIS may initiate a formal investigation.

The investigation may include examination of:

  • the submitted manuscript;

  • published versions;

  • earlier manuscript versions;

  • source materials;

  • research data where relevant;

  • interview or fieldwork documentation where relevant;

  • citations and references;

  • peer-review reports;

  • reviewer identities and recommendations;

  • editorial correspondence;

  • submission history;

  • authorship information;

  • declarations of competing interests;

  • plagiarism or similarity reports; and

  • other relevant records.

The scope of the investigation will be proportionate to the nature of the allegation.

4.7 Response from the Concerned Party

When appropriate, the journal will provide the author, reviewer, editor, or other concerned party with an opportunity to respond to the allegation.

The response may be requested in writing and may include:

  • an explanation of the circumstances;

  • supporting documentation;

  • original research materials;

  • clarification of authorship or contribution;

  • explanation of citations;

  • ethical approval documentation; or

  • other information relevant to the concern.

The journal may set a reasonable deadline for response.

Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct, but the journal may proceed on the basis of the available evidence.

4.8 Institutional Involvement

MAJIS may contact the relevant institution when:

  • the allegation concerns research conduct;

  • institutional investigation is necessary;

  • the journal lacks the authority or evidence required to determine the matter;

  • serious misconduct is suspected;

  • multiple publications or researchers may be affected; or

  • institutional records or expertise are required.

Where an institutional investigation is initiated, MAJIS may await its findings before taking a final editorial decision when appropriate.

However, the journal may take interim measures when necessary to protect readers or the scholarly record.

4.9 Investigation of Published Articles

When concerns relate to a published article, MAJIS will assess whether the concern affects the reliability, integrity, or interpretation of the published record.

The journal may consult relevant COPE guidance concerning the integrity of published research and post-publication corrections.

Where evidence demonstrates that an article requires correction or retraction, MAJIS will take appropriate editorial action rather than leaving the scholarly record uncorrected. COPE's guidance emphasizes that journals should make post-publication amendments when reliable evidence establishes that published research is invalid or unreliable.

4.10 Concerns Raised Through Social Media or Post-Publication Platforms

MAJIS may receive allegations through social media, post-publication peer-review platforms, academic forums, or other public channels.

When a concern contains specific and credible evidence relating to a published article, the journal may move the matter into its formal investigation process.

The journal will generally avoid conducting detailed investigations through public social-media exchanges.

COPE recommends that specific concerns raised through social media be handled seriously and investigated according to the relevant COPE guidance, while discouraging editors and publishers from engaging in prolonged public exchanges concerning individual allegations.

Where a public allegation results in a correction, retraction, or other formal editorial action, the journal may provide a public link to the relevant notice.

4.11 Possible Outcomes

After assessing the available evidence, MAJIS may determine one or more of the following outcomes.

A. No Misconduct Established

If the evidence does not support the allegation, the matter may be closed.

Where appropriate, the journal may inform the reporting person and the person whose work was questioned of the outcome.

If serious allegations have been made publicly, the journal may consider whether a public clarification is necessary.

B. Clarification or Correction

Where the matter involves an error or limited issue that does not invalidate the article, the journal may request or publish an appropriate correction.

C. Editorial Warning or Request for Explanation

For less serious breaches, the journal may issue a formal warning or request an explanation and require appropriate corrective action.

D. Rejection of an Unpublished Manuscript

Where serious misconduct is established before publication, MAJIS may reject the manuscript.

E. Expression of Concern

Where substantial concerns exist about the reliability or integrity of a published article but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a final determination, MAJIS may publish an Expression of Concern.

An Expression of Concern is an interim editorial communication and does not itself establish that misconduct has occurred.

F. Retraction

Where a published article is determined to be unreliable or seriously compromised, MAJIS may retract the article in accordance with its Retraction and Expression of Concern Policy and relevant COPE guidance.

The retraction notice will explain the reason for retraction and will remain linked to the original publication.

G. Referral to an Institution or Other Authority

The journal may notify or refer the matter to the relevant institution, employer, funder, or other appropriate body.

H. Other Editorial Measures

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may take other proportionate measures necessary to protect the integrity of the editorial process and scholarly record.

4.12 Appeals

A person directly affected by an editorial decision concerning an allegation of misconduct may submit an appeal according to the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should identify:

  • the decision being challenged;

  • the specific grounds for appeal;

  • any significant procedural error; and

  • any substantial new evidence relevant to the case.

An appeal should not merely repeat the original allegation or disagreement with an editorial judgment without providing substantive grounds for reconsideration.

Where possible, an appeal concerning a misconduct investigation should be reviewed by an individual who was not responsible for the original decision.

4.13 Record Keeping

MAJIS will maintain appropriate confidential records of allegations, investigations, correspondence, evidence, decisions, and resulting editorial actions.

Records should be retained in accordance with the journal's applicable record-management and privacy practices.

Retention period: [INSERT VERIFIED MAJIS RECORD-RETENTION PERIOD]

Access to confidential case records should be restricted to authorised individuals with a legitimate reason to access them.

4.14 Communication of Outcomes

Where appropriate, the journal will communicate the outcome of an investigation to:

  • the person who raised the concern;

  • the author(s) or other person(s) whose conduct was investigated;

  • relevant institutions or organisations;

  • other affected journals or publishers; and

  • readers, where a published article requires a public correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

The level of information disclosed will depend on confidentiality, privacy, legal, institutional, and publication-ethics considerations.

4.15 Preventive Measures

MAJIS seeks to reduce the risk of research and publication misconduct by:

  • maintaining clear publication-ethics policies;

  • providing authors with clear submission requirements;

  • applying appropriate peer-review procedures;

  • using appropriate similarity or plagiarism-detection tools where available;

  • requiring appropriate disclosure of conflicts of interest;

  • maintaining reviewer confidentiality;

  • providing ethical guidance to editors and reviewers;

  • reviewing unusual or suspicious submission patterns;

  • maintaining appropriate editorial records; and

  • updating publication-ethics policies when relevant standards develop.

Preventive measures do not replace the need for case-by-case investigation when a credible allegation is received.

4.16 Periodic Review of this Policy

This policy will be reviewed periodically by the journal and may be updated to reflect developments in publication ethics, research integrity, scholarly publishing practices, applicable regulations, and relevant COPE guidance.

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that allegations of misconduct are handled appropriately and that relevant editorial decisions are made independently and fairly.

The Editor-in-Chief may delegate case management to another appropriately qualified editor where necessary.

5.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • identifying and escalating potential misconduct;

  • maintaining confidentiality;

  • avoiding conflicts of interest;

  • following the journal's investigation procedures;

  • preserving relevant editorial records; and

  • taking appropriate action to protect the scholarly record.

5.3 Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • conduct and report research honestly;

  • provide accurate information;

  • cooperate with legitimate investigations;

  • retain appropriate research documentation;

  • disclose relevant conflicts of interest; and

  • respond appropriately to requests for clarification concerning their work.

5.4 Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain confidentiality;

  • disclose relevant conflicts of interest;

  • report suspected plagiarism or other serious concerns;

  • avoid inappropriate use of unpublished information; and

  • cooperate with reasonable editorial inquiries.

5.5 Reporting Persons and Whistleblowers

Persons reporting concerns are expected to provide information honestly and in good faith and, where possible, provide sufficient evidence to enable the journal to assess the allegation.

6. COPE Resources

MAJIS has developed this policy with reference to relevant COPE Core Practices, guidelines, and flowcharts.

Relevant COPE resources include:

  • COPE Core Practice: Allegations of Misconduct

  • General Approach to Publication Ethics for the Editorial Office

  • Responding to Whistleblowers When Concerns Are Raised Directly

  • Responding to Whistleblowers When Concerns Are Raised via Social Media

  • Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research

  • Fabricated Data in a Submitted Manuscript

  • Fabricated Data in a Published Article

  • Plagiarism in a Submitted Manuscript

  • Plagiarism in a Published Article

  • Inappropriate Image Manipulation in a Published Article

  • Addressing Concerns About Systematic Manipulation of the Publication Process

  • Peer Review Manipulation Suspected During the Peer Review Process

  • Peer Review Manipulation Suspected After Publication

  • Retraction Guidelines

  • Expressions of Concern

These resources should be consulted according to the nature of the individual case. They are not all equivalent in status: COPE Core Practices and formal COPE guidance should be distinguished from COPE discussion documents.

For example, COPE identifies its document on responding to anonymous concerns as a discussion document, rather than a mandatory COPE rule.

Official COPE resources are available at:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

7. Final Statement

MAJIS is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record and to responding responsibly to credible concerns about research and publication misconduct.

The journal will seek to resolve allegations through a fair, evidence-based, proportionate, and confidential process, while cooperating with relevant institutions and other journals when appropriate.

Where reliable evidence demonstrates that the published record requires correction, MAJIS will take appropriate action to ensure that readers are informed and that the scholarly record remains as accurate and transparent as reasonably possible.

This policy has been developed with reference to relevant COPE Core Practices and guidance. It does not constitute, and should not be interpreted as, COPE approval, certification, or endorsement.