Integrity Investigations

This policy governs how the journal examines credible integrity concerns after the initial assessment. Al-Muhafidz decides on editorial action within its own authority. A formal investigation into an individual’s conduct may need to be carried out by an institution or another competent body.

1. Case Assignment and Record Keeping
An authorized editor who has no conflict of interest defines the issues, identifies the relevant records, and coordinates the assessment. If the Editor-in-Chief is involved, another qualified editor will handle the case. Where suitable internal handling is not available, independent external support will be arranged.

Relevant submission versions, reports, correspondence, and evidence are preserved under appropriate access controls, and the reasons for any significant action are recorded. The identities of reviewers and reporters remain protected under the Confidentiality and Whistleblowing policies.

2. Evidence and Responses
The people concerned are normally told about the specific concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to explain and to provide supporting material. The editor may ask for research records, permissions, ethics documents, or other evidence that is proportionate to the concern.

Access restrictions must be considered under the Ethical Oversight and Data and Reproducibility policies. Sensitive evidence should be examined through an appropriate confidential arrangement, not shared indiscriminately.

Automated warnings and a lack of response are not, on their own, conclusive proof of misconduct. Decisions take account of all the evidence, including whether the central claims can be verified and whether there is a credible alternative explanation.

3. Institutional and Specialist Referral
The journal may seek independent advice on methodology or subject matter, and may refer a case to the relevant institution, ethics body, funder, or other competent authority when formal fact-finding is needed.

Information is shared only to the extent necessary, and with appropriate safeguards. Findings from an institution inform the editorial assessment, but they do not replace the journal’s responsibility for deciding the status of its publications.

A withdrawal of the submission, a departure from an institution, or a request to stop the report does not automatically end the examination of a credible concern.

4. Interim and Final Action
Editorial processing may be paused while the assessment continues. For a published article, an Expression of Concern may be considered under its dedicated policy when readers need to be warned. Interim measures do not establish responsibility.

The authorized editor records the findings relevant to publication and the reasons for the outcome. Possible outcomes include no further action, a request for clarification, a renewed assessment, rejection, or a post-publication notice under the applicable policy.

The relevant parties receive the outcome to the extent that confidentiality obligations allow. Where communication is possible, significant delays are explained. No fixed completion period is guaranteed.

5. Reconsideration
An affected party may request reconsideration by identifying material new evidence, a substantive factual error, or a procedural failure. The request is assessed by an editor who has no conflict of interest and was not solely responsible for the decision being challenged. External assessment will be arranged where necessary.

A request does not automatically suspend a notice that protects readers. If the outcome changes, the public record will be updated transparently. Complaints about how a case was handled are routed under Complaints and Appeals. Appeals against manuscript decisions are handled under Appeals of Editorial Decisions.