All academic journals published by institutions under Universitas Islam Darussalam (UID) Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia are dedicated to preserving the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. The editorial boards of all UID Ciamis journals take all allegations of scientific misconduct and publishing irregularities with utmost seriousness.

1. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research and publishing misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Data Fabrication: Making up data, results, or field records and recording or reporting them as authentic.

• Data Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or altering/omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

• Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, words, or text without giving appropriate credit or formal attribution.

• Citation Manipulation: Systematically inserting non-relevant or excessive citations to inflate citation counts artificially (e.g., coercive citation, cartel citation networks, or excessive self-citation).

• Redundant / Duplicate Publication: Submitting or publishing substantial portions of the same study in more than one publication without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification.

• Authorship Malpractice: Inclusion of ghost, guest, or gift authors, or omitting contributors who made significant scientific contributions to the work.

• Unethical Research: Conducting research involving human subjects or vulnerable groups without proper ethical clearance, institutional approval, or informed consent.

2. Handling Allegations & Investigation Mechanism

When an allegation or suspicion of misconduct arises—whether raised by reviewers, readers, whistleblowers, or automated similarity checks—the editorial team adheres strictly to COPE Flowcharts and Guidelines:

[Allegation Received]
         │
         ▼
[Step 1: Initial Assessment by Editor]
• Verify validity of claim
• Screen for potential complainant conflicts of interest
         │
    ┌────┴──────────────────────────┐
    ▼                               ▼
[Claim Unfounded]        [Plausible Evidence of Misconduct]
(Case Closed)                       │
                                    ▼
                         [Step 2: Formal Inquiry]
                         • Contact corresponding author for written explanation
                         • Solicit input from co-authors & institutional contacts
                                    │
                         ┌──────────┴──────────┐
                         ▼                     ▼
                [Satisfactory Clarification]  [Confirmed Misconduct / No Defense]
                • Publish Corrigendum/Erratum  • Manuscript in review: Immediate Rejection
                • Author Correction Notice     • Published Article: Formal Retraction

Step 1: Initial Assessment & Conflict Screening

• The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor conduct an initial assessment to determine the validity of the allegation and verify whether it meets the definition of scientific misconduct.

• The editors assess whether the complainant holds any personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.

Step 2: Formal Inquiry & Author Communication

• If the allegation warrants investigation, the Editor-in-Chief formally contacts the corresponding author in writing, detailing the concerns and requesting a written explanation and raw supporting data on behalf of all co-authors within a defined timeframe (typically 14–30 days).

• Independent expert advice (such as statistical reviewers, methodological specialists, or language/plagiarism experts) may be appointed to evaluate complex technical matters.

Step 3: Institutional Cooperation & Resolution

• In complex cases where the authors fail to respond, provide unsatisfactory explanations, or where institutional review is warranted, the journal will alert and collaborate with the authors' parent institutions or funding bodies to conduct a comprehensive investigation.

• If the investigation confirms minor honest errors (e.g., miscalculations, minor citation omissions), a Correction / Erratum / Corrigendum will be published and linked directly to the original article.

• If misconduct is confirmed during peer review, the manuscript is immediately rejected, and the authors may face a temporary submission ban.

3. Retraction Policy and Criteria

Published articles across all UID Ciamis journals will be formally retracted in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines if:

1. There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, whether as a result of major scientific misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, image manipulation) or honest, critical error (e.g., miscalculation or severe experimental flaw).

2. The manuscript constitutes plagiarism.

3. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (duplicate/redundant publication).

4. The article reports unethical research conducted without appropriate ethical clearance or informed consent.

5. The article contains compromised peer review or severe citation manipulation that undermines its academic validity.

4. Retraction Procedure & Transparency Standards

When a retraction is executed, the following transparent procedures are maintained on OJS:

• Retraction Notice: A formal notice titled "Retraction: [Article Title]" is published in the latest issue, linked directly to the original article, and assigned its own permanent DOI.

• Explanatory Grounds: The notice clearly states who is retracting the article (editors, authors, or publisher) and the specific reasons/grounds for retraction to distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error.

• Watermarked Version of Record: The original article PDF remains accessible in the digital archive to preserve the historical integrity of the scientific record; however, it is watermarked prominently on each page with the word "RETRACTED", accompanied by a bidirectional link to the formal Retraction Notice.

• Indexing Notification: Metadata aggregators and indexing databases (such as Crossref, SINTA, Garuda, and DOAJ) are notified of the retraction status to ensure accurate global referencing.