Etika Publikasi Ilmiah dan Research Misconductlldikti3.ristekdikti.go.id/v5/wp-content/uploads/... · This article has been retracted at the request of Editor-in-Chief.After a thorough

Etika Publikasi Ilmiah dan Research Misconduct

Ide Bagus SiaputraFakultas Psikologi, Universitas Surabaya

Pemerintah akan terbitkan aturan tentang integritas akademikSelasa, 19 Februari 2019 20:46 WIB

Dimyati memaklumi jika masalah integritas itu terjadi karena ketidaktahuan, namun tidak akan menoleransi kalau itu merupakan kesengajaan.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05386-5

The continued citation of retracted papers — or ‘zombie’ publications —pollutes the scientific literature with fatally flawed studies. The problem is amplified by the common practice of accessing papers through third-party websites such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate and Sci-Hub, which generally do not link to retraction notices.

Publishers can ensure that citations of zombie publications are caught before new papers go to press by running AUTOMATED CROSS-CHECKS of manuscript reference lists against the Retraction Watch database of retracted papers (http://retractiondatabase.org).

https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-

retracted-papers/

What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’

By Jeffrey Brainard, Jia YouOct. 25, 2018 , 2:00 PM

Much of the rise appears to reflect IMPROVED OVERSIGHT at a growing number of journals.

https://www.sciencemag.org/author/jeffrey-brainard

https://www.sciencemag.org/author/jeffrey-brainard

https://www.sciencemag.org/author/jia-you



http://ecojoin.org/index.php/EJE/article/view/388

Serological Evidence of Ebola Virus Infection in Indonesian Orangutans

Chairul A. Nidom ,Eri Nakayama ,Reviany V. Nidom,Mohamad Y. Alamudi,Syafril Daulay,Indi N. L. P. Dharmayanti,Yoes P. Dachlan,Mohamad Amin,Manabu Igarashi,Hiroko Miyamoto,Reiko Yoshida,Ayato Takada

Published: July 18, 2012

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040740


Serological Evidence of Ebola Virus Infection in Indonesian Orangutans

Chairul A. Nidom ,Eri Nakayama ,Reviany V. Nidom,Mohamad Y. Alamudi,Syafril Daulay,Indi N. L. P. Dharmayanti,Yoes P. Dachlan,Mohamad Amin,Manabu Igarashi,Hiroko Miyamoto,Reiko Yoshida,Ayato Takada

Published: July 18, 2012



https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0012821X18301237?token=A6F71D3AE7C9239D9DD5291991015FA1BBE70EB08A98922A870E7191069F91A31F2343336023A0CB00845DCFD3E46AC1

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1026918518300027?token=EEADBC143356B173619AF53FD730509B18D59BA7A606FDC511FA713927B694C6E8D3EF6FAE96E7D664CE53D9B02484D0

This article has been retracted at the request of Editor-in-Chief. After a thorough investigation, the Editor has concluded that the acceptance of this article was based

upon the positive advice of three illegitimate reviewer reports. The reports were

submitted from email accounts which were provided to the journal as suggested reviewers during the

submission of the article. Although purportedly real reviewer accounts, the Editor has concluded that these were not of appropriate, independent reviewers. This

manipulation of the peer-review process represents a clear violation of the fundamentals

of peer review, our publishing policies, and publishing ethics standards. Apologies are offered to the reviewers whose identities were assumed and to the readers of the journal that

this deception was not detected during the submission process.

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1026918518300027?token=EEADBC143356B173619AF53FD730509B18D59BA7A606FDC511FA713927B694C6E8D3EF6FAE96E7D664CE53D9B02484D0

https://www.cureus.com/articles/6371-redefining-health-implication-for-value-based-healthcare-reform/retraction

http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ti/article/view/6991

Wanted

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/06/10/wanted-6000-new-journals-to-publish-150000-papers.html

The growth in the number of academic papers outside Scopus-indexed journals is also impressive. Citing Google Scholar, the ministry’s academic database, Sinta, showed that in 2013 there were 86,510 papers and this grew to 157,892 in 2017. (Shutterstock/-)

Harvard teaching hospital

https://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/27/harvard-teaching-hospital-pay-10-million-settle-research-misconduct-allegations/

Famous Harvard economist

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/04/famous-harvard-economist-reused-parts-of-2002-paper-multiple-times-says-journal/

Revolt over an editor?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/30/prominent-psychologist-resigns-journal-editor-over-allegations-over-self-citation

Retracted: Effects of Nano-Hydroxyapatite

Effects of ChoukronPlatelet

Effects of ChoukronPlatelet

Unfortunately, figure 3 of this paper depicts HE-stained tissue sections identical to those depicted in figure 4 in a 2018 paper utilizing a rabbit model of mandibular damage and repair titled “Effect of Choukroun Platelet-Rich Fibrin Combined with Autologous Micro-Morselized Bone on the Repair of Mandibular Defects in Rabbits” and published in the J Oral Maxillofac Surg., Epub 2017 Jun 2.

12

AB

12

AB

12

AB

Drosophila Muller F Elements

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25740935

1.014 pengarang

5,154 pengarang

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/pay-or-retract-survey-creators-demands-money-rile-some-health-researchers

http://www.ijcmph.com/index.php/ijcmph/article/view/675/1042

http://www.ijcmph.com/index.php/ijcmph/article/view/675/1042

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2016/16_0044r.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2016/16_0044r.htm

• Trubow forwarded us email correspondence that led to another recent retraction in the International Journal of Integrative Medical Sciences for a similar copyright infringement issue regarding unlicensed use of the MMAS scale.

• As part of that correspondence, the first author also apologized to Trubow for the use of the scale, saying the work was done by students who found the information ONLINE FOR FREE. The researcher answered the questions Trubow sent, then ASKED that the fee be waived, as the work was done without any grant.

• Trubow responded on December 28, 2016:– There will be a cost of $750.00 (USD). This is a reduced fee for a

corrective license. The usual cost for serious infringements is $1000.00. It costs us a lot of money to investigate and correct the infringements If you don’t want to pay the fee, I will not prepare the license. Let me know.

• A few hours later, the author wrote back, saying they were no longer interested in using the scale, and HAD ASKED THE JOURNAL TO REMOVE THE PAPER.

http://imedsciences.com/ijims-2016-136/

http://www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index.aspx

CASE NUMBER : 18-01CASE TEXT (ANONYMISED)

A researcher has published a paper in our journal using a scale published in 2008. She wrote to the scale developer in 2014/2015 at least three times (emails are on file) before the start of the project, but the scale developer did not respond despite repeated email reminders. No indication of the need for a license was received. In 2017, when the researcher published the paper using the above scale, she was contacted by a person claiming that he was representing the scale's developer and asked for a retrospective license and license fee, and threatened that if the she did not apply for a retrospective license and pay the license fee, she may need to take legal responsibility and retract the published paper. He also said that if she does not pay the fee, then the team’s lawyer would contact her. The name of the lawyer is given, with a gmailaccount. No firm name or any other information is provided. The researcher has searched the internet and found examples of this person asking other people to apply for a retrospective license and receiving money.

https://publicationethics.org/case/license-using-published-scale

FOLLOW UP : The author withdrew the paper. The journal considers the case closed.RESOLUTION : Case ClosedYEAR : 2018

COPE

https://publicationethics.org/taxonomy/term/2866

CASE NUMBER : 18-04CASE TEXT (ANONYMISED)

We have received a number of manuscripts involving a published scale where the scale’s developer is known to comb the literature and ask those who used the scale for research to pay for a retroactive license, sometimes asking for very large sums of money.

https://publicationethics.org/case/licence-published-scaleRESOLUTION : On-goingYEAR : 2018

ADVICE:The Forum asked if the journal had sought legal advice. There are copyright and licensing issues here that need to be addressed. Who holds copyright on the scale? Is the right to use the scale also copyrighted? … The Forum agreed THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE, with no easy solution.

A suggestion was to write an editorial, highlighting this issue. … The editor might consider contacting other editors and producing a joint editorial or opinion piece, highlighting the issues around this type of behaviour and holding authors to ransom in this way, and emphasizing the fact that this is not good for the advancement of scientific knowledge or in the public interest.

https://publicationethics.org/taxonomy/term/2866

https://irb.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2018-11-06%20v2%20Notice%20to%20Investigators%20re%20MMAS.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4656225/table/Tab2/?report=objectonly

What is your policy regarding access to critical research

https://jmir.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000547811

Using copyright protected questionnaires and instrumentsWe explicitly discourage the use of copyright protected instruments. We encourage the development and validation of alternatives to copyright protected instruments.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has recently discussed an increasing number of cases …. "the scale’s developer is known to … ask those who used the scale … to pay for a retroactive license, sometimes asking for very large sums of money" (https://publicationethics.org/case/licence-published-scale)

COPE condemned "this type of behaviour and holding authors to ransom in this way" and recommends to emphasize "the fact that this is not good for the advancement of scientific knowledge or in the public interest".

https://publicationethics.org/case/licence-published-scale





https://jmir.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000547811

JMIR has first hand experience with the following scale developers who have contacted us or the author threatening legal action. As a result, we strongly discourage authors to use these scales (and if they are used, authors are required to upload license agreements): MMAS

JMIR had to publish MULTIPLE CORRECTIONS. As a result of the behavior of these

scale developers, JMIR has a standing SPECIAL CALL FOR PAPERS for short paper instruments or electronic tools licensed under Creative Commons or available under an Open Source license that can be used instead of MMAS to measure medication adherence, and we WILL WAIVE THE ARTICLE SUBMISSION FEE for such development and validation papers describing new instruments that can be used as a free alternative to MMAS.

Wanted

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/06/10/wanted-6000-new-journals-to-publish-150000-papers.html

The growth in the number of academic papers outside Scopus-indexed journals is also impressive. Citing Google Scholar, the ministry’s academic database, Sinta, showed that in 2013 there were 86,510 papers and this grew to 157,892 in 2017. (Shutterstock/-)

https://i2.wp.com/writeonwithjamie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/academic-epidemic-2.png?resize=300%2C300&ssl=1

Nilai Integritas Akademik

• kejujuran,

• kredibilitas,

• kewajaran,

• kehormatan dan

• tanggung jawab

• KEBERANIAN

Kerangka Kerja untuk menumbuhkan kebijakanINTEGRITAS AKADEMIK yang dapat diteladani

Figure 1: Framework for enacting exemplary academic integrity policy (Bretag & Mahmud 2013, under review)

• Regular review of academic integrity policy and process: Telaah dan perbaikan berkelanjutan.

• Academic integrity champions: penghargaan bagipemenang dan pahlawan.

• Academic integrity education for all stakeholders:pendidikan bagi semua.

• Student engagement: pelibatan (maha)siswa. • Robust decision making systems: sistem dan

penanggungjawab.• Record keeping for evaluation: pendokumentasian

terpusat.

Enam rekomendasi untuk menanamkan danmenumbuhkan budaya integritas akademik

www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP

• Tindaklanjuttemuan & laporan

• Investigasi

•Rekomendasi

• Advokasi

• Rehabilitasi(nama dan perilaku)

• Sanksi

• Pengembangan diri

• Training of trainer

• Pelatihan dan lokakarya

• Evaluasi integritas akademik

• Evaluasi etika publikasi

• Dasar Hukum

• Latar belakang

• Tujuan

• Lingkup dan Batasan

• Identifikasi

• Ragam d& Taksonomi Pembinaan

Mitigasi

(ps. 1-12)

PembinaanPrevensi

13-16

Penanggulangan

Penyampaian& penanganan

laporan

17-21

Penanggulangan

Sanksi

(ps. 22-34)

Rehabilitasi

• Appropriate conduct : Tepat (sesuai aturan)Diterima secara luas sebagai praktik ilmiah yang baik.

• Misconduct (Pelanggaran)– Questionable conduct (diragukan/dipertanyakan)

Tidak ada aturan yang jelas tapi pelaku biasanya malu mengakui atauenggan mengungkapkannya.

– Inappropriate conduct (tidak/kurang tepat)Aturan ada namun bervariasi antar disiplin ilmu, negara, lembaga, dan/atau jurnal.

– Blatant misconduct (pelanggaran secara terang-terangan)Pelanggaran terhadap aturan yang sudah jelas dan universal.

Taksonomi Pelanggaran dalam Riset(Hall & Martin, 2018)

Perilaku yang Tepat, Dipertanyakan, Tidak Tepat, danPelanggaran Terang-terangan (Hall & Martin, 2018)

ManipulasiData

Winsorization*

HARKing

Melakukan pemilihan data

Menghilangkan data

Fabrikasi data

Falsifikasi data

Winsorization membobot lebih rendah atau memodifikasi skor outlier agar lebih sesuai dengan sampel.HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are know


KaryaOrang Lain

Mengambil dan membangun di atas hasilkarya orang lain

Muncuplik kalimat orang lain, memberikanpengakuan namun tanpa tanda petik

Mengambil serangkaian kalimat tanpasumber dan tanda petik

Kesalahan dalam melakukan kutipan ataumengakui karya orang lain

Plagiarisme seluruh naskah atau bagian

Secara sengaja menghilangkan suatu bagiandalam sebuah karya (mis. proposal)


KaryaSendiri

Berusaha keras melewatkan karya sendiri

Menghindari swa-sitasi secara berlebihanMemaksimalkan luaran penelitian

Swa-sitasi berlebihan (padahal tidak perlu/wajib)

Melaporkan penelitian secara tumpang-tindihPublikasi secara salami (membagi kecil-kecil)

Swa-plagiarismeMelaporkan hasil penelitian yang sama secara

berulang-ulang (publikasi ganda)Menggunakan teori atau data yang sama untuk

memberikan simpulan yang berbeda (hanya untukmenerbitkan artikel berbeda)


Kepengarangan

Melibatkan semua orang yang memilikikontribusi substansial

Mewajibkan seseorang menjadi pengarang(kecuali untuk pembimbing doktor/PhD)

Ghost authorship (menghilangkan orang)

Gift authorship (melibatkan orang)

Gift colluding (memberikan bantuan)

Gagal mengakui adanya konflik kepentingan

Klasifikasi Kesalahan Penelitian(Kuroki, 2018)

• Kesalahan kelas satu (Class I): Kebenaran

– (1) Fabrikasi

– (2) Falsifikasi

• Kesalahan kelas dua (Class II): Kepercayaan

– (1) Plagiarisme terhadap naskah/teks

– (2) Tidak dapat direproduksi (Irreproducibility)

– (3) Praktik penelitian yang tidak tepat

• Kesalahan kelas tiga (Class III): Risiko terhadap faktorkeamanan produk kesehatan dan industri

– (1) Risiko atas keamanan penggunaan produk kesehatan

– (2) Risiko atas keamanan penggunaan produk industri

• Access: mudah diakses, dibaca, ditulis denganbaik, jelas, dan ringkas.

• Approach: proses pendidikan dan dilakukan sejakdini

• Responsibility: pemerataan tanggung jawabuntuk semua yang terlibat.

• Support: sistem pendukung (prosedur, sumberdaya, kegiatan)

• Detail: penjelasan secara lengkap tapi tidakberlebihan.

Lima elemen utama kebijakan integitasakademik

www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP

Kumpulan standar atau pedoman etis tentang(proses) publikasi demi tercapainya publikasiilmiah yang berkualitas tinggi, kepercayaan

publik pada temuan penelitian, danmemberikan penghargaan kepada pengarangsesuai dengan ide (gagasan) yang dihasilkan.

Biomedcentral (2019)

Etika Publikasi

https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/writing-resources/publication-ethics

• Etika publikasi berfokus pada proses tata kelolapublikasi secara etis.

• Integritas ilmiah/akademik berfokus pengenalandan penerapan nilai-nilai mendasar terkaitperilaku berintegritas.– Honesty (kejujuran)– Trust (kepercayaan)– Fairness (keadilan/kesetaraan)– Respect (kehormatan/penghargaan) – Responsibility (tanggungjawab)– Courage (keberanian)

Etika Publikasi dan Integritas Ilmiah

• Tindakan yang didasari nilai-nilai kejujuran, kepercayaan, keadilan, kehormatan, dan rasa tanggungjawab dalam proses belajar, mengajar, dan penelitian.

• Penting dimiliki dan dilaksanakan olehmaha(siswa), guru/dosen, peneliti, dan tenagaprofesional di lingkungan akademik.

Exemplary Academic Integrity Project (EAIP): Embedding and extending exemplary academic integrity policy and support frameworks across the higher education sector (2013), Plain English

definition of Academic Integrity, Office for Learning and Teaching Strategic Commissioned Project 2012-2013, http: www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP .

Integritas Akademik (1)

• Kejujuran, kepercayaan, keadilan, kehormatan, danrasa tanggungjawab Keohane(1999)

• Keberanian (menghadapitekanan dan tantangan; Fishman (2014)

Integritas Akademik (2)

• Etika publikasi lebih berfokus pada prosespelaporan hasi penelitian (pasca-penelitian)

• Etika penelitian lebih berfokus pada penelitidan proses berlangsungnya penelitian

Etika Publikasi dan Etika Penelitian

• Etika penelitian lebih berfokus pada penelitidan proses berlangsungnya penelitian– Hak asasi, privasi, dan kerahasiaan

– Budaya dan warisan budaya

– Pendaftaran uji klinis

– Perlakuan terhadap hewan penelitian

– Keamanan hayati (biosecurity)

– Panduan baku pelaporan hasil penelitian(reporting guideline)

Etika Penelitian

• Kekokohan dan keandalan hasil penelitian• Kejujuran• Keseimbangan• Originalitas (keaslian) penelitian• Transparansi• Kepengarangan dan pengakuan• Akuntabilitas dan tanggung jawab• Kepatuhan pada ulasan sejawat dan kesepakatan

publikasi• Melaporkan penelitian secara bertanggungjawab ketika

melibatkan manusia atau hewan.

Etika publikasi (dari sisi penulis)

68

1. Tuduhan Pelanggaran2. Kepengarangan dan kontribusi3. Keluhan dan Banding4. Benturan/persaingan Kepentingan5. Data dan Reproduksibilitas6. Pengawasan Etis7. Hak milik intelektual8. Pengelolaan jurnal9. Proses ulasan sejawat10. Diskusi dan Koreksi Pasca-publikasi

(https://publicationethics.org)

Etika publikasi (editor/penerbit): COPE’s Core Practices

COPE’s Core Practices

69

1. Tuduhan Pelanggaran


Jurnal harus memiliki proses yang dijabarkan dengan jelas untuk menangani dugaan(tuduhan) adanya pelanggaran, terlepas dari bagaimana dugaan/tuduhan tersebutdimunculkan

Jurnal harus menanggapi dengan serius dugaan pelanggaran pra-publikasi dan pasca-publikasi.

Kebijakan harus mencakup cara menangani tuduhan dari pelapor.


70

2. Kepengarangan dan kontribusi


Jurnal harus memiliki kebijakan yang jelas perihal persyaratan menjadi penulis dan kontributor. Kebijakan tersebut harus memungkinkan terjadinya transparansi tentangbentuk kontribusi dan seberapa besar kontribusi dari tiap penulis.

Jurnal wajib merancang proses untuk mengelola sengketa yang mungkin terjadi.


71

3. Keluhan dan Banding


Jurnal harus memiliki proses yang dijabarkan dengan jelas dalammenangani keluhan terhadap jurnal, staf penerbitan, dewan editor, atau penerbit.


72

4. Benturan/persaingan Kepentingan


Jurnal harus memberikan penjabaran yang jelas tentang definisi dan proses yang akan dilakukan untuk menangani terjadinya benturan (konflik) kepentingan antarakepentingan antara penulis, mitra bebestari, editor, dan penerbit.

Proses penanganan yang dijabarkan harus meliputi tahapan sebelum atau sesudah publikasi.


73

5. Data dan reproduksi hasil penelitian


Jurnal harus menyusun dan menjabarkan kebijakan tentang ketersediaan data,mendorong penggunaan pedoman pelaporan (reporting guideline), dan pendaftaranuji klinis maupun rancangan penelitian lain sesuai dengan standar pada tiap disiplinilmu.


74

6. Pengawasan Etis


Pengawasan etis meliputi hal-hal yang terkait namun tidak terbatas pada kebijakantentang persetujuan penulis untuk menerbitkan artikel, publikasi tentang populasiyang rentan, perilaku etis dalam penelitian menggunakan hewan, perilaku etis dalampenelitian menggunakan subjek manusia, penanganan terhadap data dan praktikbisnis/pemasaran yang bersifat rahasia.


75

7. Hak milik intelektual


Semua kebijakan tentang kekayaan intelektual, termasuk hak cipta dan lisensipenerbitan, harus dijabarkan dengan jelas.

Sebagai tambahan, biaya apa pun yang terkait dengan penerbitan harus jelas bagipara penulis dan pembaca.

Jurnal wajib memiliki kebijakan yang jelas tentang apa yang dianggap sebagai prapublikasi sehingga tidak dapat diterbitkan.

Jurnal harus memberikan arahan dan rincian tentang apa yang disebut sebagaiplagiarisme, publikasi yang berlebihan/tumpang tindih.


76

8. Pengelolaan jurnal


Jurnal perlu merancang dan membangun infrastruktur yang dijabarkan dandilaksanakan secara baik terkait pengelolaan jurnal.

Hal ini meliputi model bisnis, kebijakan, proses dan perangkat lunakuntuk menjalankan proses editorial jurnal secara independen, termasuk pengelolaansecara efisien dan pemberian pelatihan kepada dewan editor serta staf publikasi.


77

9. Proses Ulasan Sejawat


Seluruh proses ulasan sejawat harus dijelaskan secara transparandan dikelola dengan baik.

Jurnal harus menyediakan pelatihan untuk editor dan mitra bebestasi dan memiliki kebijakan tentang beragam aspek ulasan sejawat, khususnya terkait pemilihan danpenetapan model/prosedur pemberian ulasan dan proses untuk menangani benturankepentingan, proses banding, dan penanganan perselisihan yang mungkin timbul selama proses ulasan sejawat.


78

10. Diskusi dan Koreksi Pasca-publikasi


Jurnal wajib mengizinkan terjadinya diskusi dan perdebatan pasca-publikasi, baik pada situs jurnal mereka, melalui pengiriman surat (Email) kepada editor, atau padasitus yang dikelola pihak eksternal, misalnya PubMed Commons atau PubPeer.

Jurnal wajib memiliki mekanisme untuk mengoreksi, merevisi atau mencabut artikelsetelah pasca-publikasi, apabila memang terbukti ada kesalahan atau pelanggaranyang terjadi.

Prinsip transparansi dalam pengelolaan jurnal

1. Website 2. Nama Jurnal3. Proses Peer Review4. Kepemilikan dan Manajemen5. Struktur Organisasi6. Informasi tentang tim

Editor/Kontak7. Hak Cipta dan Perizinan8. Biaya Penulis9. Dugaan Pelanggaran Akademik10. Etika Publikasi

11. Jadwal Penerbitan12. Akses13. Perarsipan 14. Sumber Pendapatan15. Periklanan16. Pemasaran Langsung

Taksonomi Kasus dari COPE

1. Hal Kepengarangan2. Benturan Kepentingan3. Persetujuan Untuk Publikasi4. Kontributor5. Hak Cipta6. Koreksi Sastra7. Data8. Kemandirian Editor9. Pendanaan/Sponsor10. Metrik11. Lain-Lain12. Pelanggaran/Perilaku Yang

Dipertanyakan

13. Kesalahan14. Ulasan sejawat15. Plagiarisme16. Penelitian Yang

dipertanyakan/Tidak Etis17. Publikasi yang

Berlebihan/Duplikasi18. Pelapor pelanggaran

(Whistleblowers)

Contoh pelanggaran

Kasus 01. Ada artikel yang memiliki kemiripan dengan banyak sumber.

Kasus 02. Ada artikel yang memiliki kemiripan tinggi dengan satu-duaartikel lain.

Kasus 03. Ada artikel yang tergolong self-plagiarism

Kasus 04. Artikel dalam versi sama (published/final version) tersimpan disejumlah website berbeda.

Kasus 05. Penerbit jurnal tergolong meragukan

Kasus 06. Ada temuan (hasil penelitian) yang tergolong mencurigakan. – Koefisien korelasi yang terlalu besar

Kasus 07. Rekayasa sumber acuan– Informasi yang diambil tergolong informasi umum atau setidaknya

pengetahuan umum pada bidang ilmu terkait.– Sumber acuan digunakan secara berturut-turut untuk satu informasi

tunggal.

Alamat kontak

• Email: [email protected]

• Mobile: 08155004434

Documents

Etika Publikasi Ilmiah dan Research Misconductlldikti3.ristekdikti.go.id/v5/wp-content/uploads/... · This article has been retracted at the request of Editor-in-Chief.After a thorough