Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

 
INTEGRITY  •  TRANSPARENCY  •  FAIRNESS  •  ACCOUNTABILITY

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

 

The Research Dialogue

An Online Quarterly Multidisciplinary Peer-Reviewed and Refereed Research Journal

Research Integrity Ethical Publishing Fair Peer Review Editorial Independence Accountability
✦
OUR ETHICAL COMMITMENT

Commitment to Responsible Scholarly Publishing

The Research Dialogue is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, transparency, fairness, accountability and responsible scholarly communication. The journal considers ethical publishing fundamental to the credibility of research and to the preservation of confidence in the scholarly record.

As a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary journal, The Research Dialogue receives scholarly contributions from diverse academic areas. The same fundamental principles of research integrity and publication ethics apply to all manuscripts irrespective of subject, methodology, geographical origin, institutional affiliation or academic status of the authors.

Authors, reviewers, editors and other participants in the publication process are expected to act responsibly and to protect the originality, reliability, confidentiality and ethical integrity of scholarly communication from manuscript submission through peer review, editorial decision, publication and post-publication evaluation.

CORE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Foundation of Responsible Publication

1
Integrity
2
Transparency
3
Fairness
4
Accountability
01   RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted manuscripts represent genuine scholarly work and that all research, data, analysis, interpretations, references and declarations are presented honestly and accurately.

✓ Originality: Authors must submit original work and appropriately acknowledge all intellectual material derived from other sources.

✓ Accurate Reporting: Research procedures, data, results and conclusions must be reported accurately without deliberate fabrication, falsification or misleading manipulation.

✓ Proper Attribution: Ideas, quotations, data, figures, tables and other material originating from external sources must be appropriately cited.

✓ Responsible Authorship: Only individuals who satisfy appropriate authorship criteria should be listed as authors.

✓ Ethical Compliance: Relevant ethical approval, informed consent and other research permissions should be obtained where required.

✓ Disclosure: Funding, competing interests and other relationships capable of influencing the research should be appropriately declared.

✓ Correction of Errors: Authors should promptly notify the journal if a significant error or ethical concern is discovered in submitted or published work.

02   ORIGINALITY AND PLAGIARISM

Protection of Original Scholarship

All submitted manuscripts must represent original scholarship. Authors must appropriately acknowledge the words, ideas, arguments, theories, data, illustrations, tables, figures, research findings and other intellectual contributions of previous scholars.

Direct plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, translation plagiarism, data plagiarism, image plagiarism and other forms of unattributed intellectual appropriation are unacceptable.

The journal may use similarity-detection software together with manual editorial assessment. Similarity reports are interpreted in context, and a numerical similarity percentage is not considered by itself to establish or exclude plagiarism.

03

Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Authors should not present substantial portions of their own previously published material as new work without appropriate acknowledgement. Reuse of previously published text, data, tables, figures or results must be transparent and academically justified.

Limited repetition of standard methodological descriptions may occasionally be unavoidable, but unnecessary duplication should be avoided and relevant earlier publications should be cited where appropriate.

Substantial undisclosed reuse of an author's previously published work may be treated as self-plagiarism or redundant publication.

04   DUPLICATE AND MULTIPLE SUBMISSION

Exclusive Consideration of Manuscripts

Authors should not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal or publisher. A manuscript submitted to The Research Dialogue should not ordinarily be under active consideration elsewhere.

Publishing substantially identical research, data, analyses or conclusions in multiple publications without transparent disclosure may constitute duplicate or redundant publication.

Where a manuscript is derived from or substantially related to a thesis, dissertation, conference paper, working paper, report or preprint, authors should disclose the relationship where appropriate and ensure compliance with relevant copyright and publication requirements.

05   AUTHORSHIP AND CONTRIBUTORSHIP

Responsible Attribution of Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation or preparation of the research.

All listed authors should approve the final version of the manuscript, agree to its submission and accept appropriate responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

Gift authorship, honorary authorship, guest authorship and ghost authorship are inappropriate. Individuals who contributed in a limited technical, administrative, advisory or financial capacity should normally be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.

Requests for addition, removal or rearrangement of authors after submission may require written justification and agreement from all affected contributors and remain subject to editorial review.

06

Research Data Integrity

Research data, observations, survey responses, experimental results, statistical analyses and other forms of evidence must be generated, recorded, analysed and reported honestly.

Fabrication involves creating data or results that did not genuinely arise from the reported research process. Falsification includes inappropriate alteration, omission or manipulation of research materials, processes or results in a manner that misrepresents the study.

Where reasonable questions concerning data integrity arise, the Editorial Committee may request clarification, relevant documentation, underlying data or other supporting information necessary to assess the concern.

07   RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS

Ethics, Consent and Participant Protection

Research involving human participants, students, teachers, patients, vulnerable populations, interviews, surveys, personal information or identifiable records must comply with applicable ethical, institutional and legal requirements.

Ethics approval and informed consent should be obtained where required. Relevant approval, consent or exemption information should be included in the manuscript where appropriate.

The privacy, dignity, confidentiality and anonymity of research participants must be appropriately protected. Personally identifiable information should not be published unless its inclusion is academically necessary, legally permissible and appropriately authorised.

08   ANIMAL RESEARCH ETHICS

Responsible Treatment of Animals in Research

Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national and professional standards governing humane treatment and responsible scientific use.

Relevant ethical approval details should be reported where required, and research methods should demonstrate appropriate consideration of animal welfare and responsible experimental practice.

09

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers and editors should disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, academic or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their scholarly judgement.

The existence of a competing interest does not necessarily constitute misconduct. Transparent disclosure enables the journal to determine whether appropriate safeguards or alternative editorial arrangements are necessary.

Editors and reviewers should not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts where a significant conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their independence.

10   FUNDING AND SPONSORSHIP DISCLOSURE

Transparency regarding Research Support

Authors should identify research grants, financial support, sponsorship or other relevant funding received for the study where applicable.

Where a funding organisation or sponsor has influenced study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation or publication decisions, the nature of that involvement should be transparently disclosed.

11   RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

Editorial Integrity and Independence

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, confidentially and according to their scholarly merits, relevance to the journal, methodological quality and ethical compliance.

✓ Fair Evaluation: Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit rather than inappropriate personal or institutional considerations.

✓ Editorial Independence: Publication decisions should not be improperly influenced by commercial, political, financial or unrelated external pressures.

✓ Confidentiality: Editors must protect confidential information contained in submitted manuscripts and editorial correspondence.

✓ Suitable Peer Review: Qualified reviewers should be selected according to appropriate disciplinary or methodological expertise.

✓ Conflict Management: Editors should withdraw from editorial handling where substantial conflicts of interest exist.

✓ Ethical Investigation: Credible allegations concerning publication or research misconduct should be considered responsibly and fairly.

EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

Scholarly Merit Determines Publication

Manuscripts should be assessed according to originality, scholarly relevance, methodology, accuracy, ethical compliance and contribution to knowledge. Editorial decisions should not be improperly influenced by an author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, academic position, geographical location or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

12   RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

Ethical Conduct during Peer Review

Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessment and contribute to the quality of editorial decision-making. They are expected to conduct reviews objectively, confidentially, constructively and without inappropriate bias.

✓ Expertise: Reviewers should accept assignments only where they possess suitable subject or methodological knowledge.

✓ Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts and unpublished information must be treated confidentially.

✓ Objectivity: Reviewer comments should be academically reasoned, evidence-based and free from personal criticism.

✓ Conflicts: Reviewers should disclose relevant conflicts and decline assignments where impartial assessment may be compromised.

✓ Citation Ethics: Reviewers must not pressure authors to add irrelevant citations for personal or journal advantage.

✓ Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the agreed period wherever reasonably possible.

13   CONFIDENTIALITY

Protection of Unpublished Scholarly Material

Submitted manuscripts, research data, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and other unpublished information obtained through the editorial process must be treated confidentially.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished ideas, findings, data or methods obtained through peer review for personal research, competitive advantage, financial benefit or other unauthorised purposes.

The duty of confidentiality continues after the editorial or peer-review process has ended, regardless of the final publication decision.

14

Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Artificial-intelligence and automated tools may support certain scholarly activities, but they must not replace original research, independent reasoning, critical interpretation or human accountability.

Artificial-intelligence systems cannot qualify as authors because authorship requires responsibility for the integrity, accuracy and ethical compliance of scholarly work.

Where generative artificial intelligence has been materially used in preparing text, analysis, code, images, data presentation or other substantive scholarly content, authors should disclose its use in accordance with the journal's applicable AI policy.

Editors and reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality and should not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential information into external AI systems where privacy, data retention and security cannot be adequately assured.

15   CITATION AND REFERENCE ETHICS

Accuracy and Responsible Citation

References must correspond to genuine scholarly sources and should be cited accurately and appropriately. Authors are responsible for checking the authenticity and bibliographic accuracy of every source included in the manuscript.

Fabricated references, nonexistent sources, false DOI information, invented quotations and deliberately misleading citation practices are unacceptable.

Citation manipulation, including unnecessary self-citation, coordinated citation practices or pressure to cite irrelevant material primarily to increase citation metrics, is incompatible with responsible scholarly publishing.

16   COPYRIGHT AND THIRD-PARTY MATERIAL

Respect for Intellectual Property

Authors are responsible for ensuring that copyrighted or third-party material included in their manuscripts is used lawfully and appropriately acknowledged.

Where permission is legally or contractually required for reproduction of tables, figures, photographs, substantial textual extracts or other protected material, authors should obtain appropriate permission before publication.

Submission or acceptance of a manuscript does not transfer responsibility for copyright compliance from the authors to the journal.

17

Complaints and Appeals

Authors and other relevant parties may raise a reasoned complaint concerning editorial procedure, publication ethics or another journal-related matter where they believe a significant issue requires review.

Authors may also appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a substantial academic, methodological, factual or procedural issue was misunderstood or not adequately considered.

An appeal should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and should provide appropriate scholarly or documentary justification. Mere disagreement with reviewer comments or rejection does not automatically justify reversal of a decision.

Where practicable, complaints or appeals involving a previous editorial decision may be examined by an editor or editorial representative who can provide an appropriately independent assessment.

18   ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

Responsible Investigation of Ethical Concerns

Credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, unethical research, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or other possible forms of publication misconduct may be investigated by the journal.

An allegation should not automatically be treated as proof of misconduct. Where appropriate, relevant parties should be given an opportunity to provide clarification, evidence or supporting documentation before an editorial conclusion is reached.

The nature and extent of any editorial response should be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern, the available evidence and its potential effect on the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

19   EXAMPLES OF PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE

Practices Considered Unacceptable

Plagiarism or substantial unattributed copying
Fabrication or falsification of research data
Duplicate or redundant publication
Simultaneous submission to multiple journals
Gift, guest, honorary or ghost authorship
Fabricated or manipulated references
Citation manipulation or coercive citation
Undisclosed significant conflicts of interest
Misleading manipulation of figures or images
Unethical treatment of research participants
Misrepresentation of research findings
Undisclosed irresponsible use of AI-generated content
20

Corrections to Published Articles

Where a published article contains an error that does not invalidate the central findings but requires correction for accuracy or clarity, the journal may publish an appropriate correction notice.

Corrections should clearly identify the affected publication and explain the relevant change sufficiently to maintain transparency in the scholarly record.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable post-publication corrections where inaccuracies are identified.

21   EXPRESSION OF CONCERN

Serious Concerns Requiring Further Investigation

An expression of concern may be considered where substantial questions have arisen concerning the integrity or reliability of a publication but available evidence is not yet sufficient to justify correction or retraction.

Such a notice is intended to alert readers transparently while relevant investigation or clarification remains incomplete.

22   RETRACTION POLICY

Protecting the Reliability of the Published Record

Retraction may be considered where reliable evidence demonstrates that a published article is substantially unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, serious error, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication or another major breach of publication integrity.

A retraction notice should identify the affected article and provide an appropriate explanation for the editorial action. Retraction is intended primarily to correct the scholarly record and alert readers that the affected work should no longer be relied upon in its original form.

Minor errors that do not invalidate the principal findings should ordinarily be addressed through correction rather than retraction.

POST-PUBLICATION ACTION

Maintaining the Scholarly Record

Publication does not prevent the journal from examining credible concerns that arise later. Depending upon the nature, evidence and seriousness of a post-publication issue, the journal may take one or more appropriate actions.

Correction
Editorial Notice
Expression of Concern
Retraction
23   HANDLING SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT

A Fair and Proportionate Process

1 Initial Assessment: The journal examines whether the concern is sufficiently specific and credible to justify further review.
2 Clarification: Relevant authors or other parties may be asked to provide explanations, records or supporting documentation.
3 Evidence Review: Available evidence is examined in relation to the nature and seriousness of the allegation.
4 External Referral: Where appropriate, serious matters may be referred to an institution, ethics committee, research organisation, funding body or other competent authority.
5 Editorial Action: Any decision should be proportionate to the available evidence and the effect of the concern on the scholarly record.
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

Misconduct, Honest Error and Scholarly Disagreement

The journal seeks to distinguish deliberate or reckless research misconduct from honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement. Not every mistake constitutes misconduct, and differences in interpretation, methodology or academic opinion should not be treated as ethical violations merely because scholars disagree.

FAIR AND INCLUSIVE SCHOLARLY PRACTICE

Non-Discrimination in Editorial Evaluation

Manuscripts should be evaluated according to scholarly quality, originality, methodology, ethical compliance and relevance without inappropriate discrimination based on nationality, geographical origin, gender, institutional affiliation, professional position, academic seniority, language background or other characteristics unrelated to the academic merit of the submitted research.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Ethical Publishing Is a Collective Responsibility

Authors

Responsible for originality, research integrity, accurate reporting, ethical compliance and appropriate disclosure.

Reviewers

Responsible for confidentiality, independence, objective assessment and constructive scholarly evaluation.

Editors

Responsible for fair decisions, confidentiality, appropriate review and responsible handling of ethical concerns.

The Journal

Responsible for transparent policies, credible editorial processes and continued protection of the scholarly record.

✓

Ethical Publication Commitment

The Research Dialogue is committed to promoting responsible research and protecting confidence in scholarly communication through transparent editorial practices, independent peer review, responsible authorship, appropriate attribution, accurate reporting and fair consideration of publication-ethics concerns.

Authors, reviewers and editors share responsibility for safeguarding the accuracy, credibility and integrity of the scholarly record. Ethical publishing is therefore treated as a continuing responsibility extending beyond initial publication.

✦

Integrity Is the Foundation of Scholarly Dialogue

 

The Research Dialogue seeks to maintain a scholarly environment in which originality, fairness, transparency, accountability and responsible research practice guide every stage of publication. Protecting these principles helps ensure that published scholarship remains credible, useful and worthy of the trust of the academic community.

 
The Research Dialogue
MANIFESTATION OF PERFECTION
PUBLICATION ETHICS  •  RESEARCH INTEGRITY  •  RESPONSIBLE SCHOLARSHIP