Publication Malpractice

Al-Muhafidz prohibits practices that deceive readers, distort scholarly credit, compromise the assessment of manuscripts, or undermine the reliability of the published record. These standards apply to authors, reviewers, editors, and publishing staff alike.

1. Prohibited Practices

• Fabrication and falsification: inventing research records, or altering data, evidence, images, methods, or findings in a misleading way.
• Plagiarism and concealed duplication: presenting another person’s work as one’s own, or concealing overlapping publication in breach of journal policy.
• Authorship manipulation: buying, selling, coercing, fabricating, or concealing authorship positions or substantive contributions.
• Peer review manipulation: impersonating a reviewer, submitting fabricated reports, concealing collusion, or interfering in the review in order to secure a predetermined outcome.
• Citation manipulation: making coercive or irrelevant citation requests, citing fabricated references, or arranging citations mainly to inflate citation indicators.
• False documentation or concealment: forging permissions, ethics approvals, affiliations, or declarations, or deliberately hiding material interests.
• Improper editorial or commercial influence: offering or accepting benefits to dictate acceptance, suppress legitimate concerns, or misrepresent the assessment a manuscript has received.

2. Distinguishing Concerns from Findings
Honest error, a justified methodological difference, and good-faith scholarly disagreement do not automatically amount to misconduct. Each concern is assessed on the basis of the evidence, its context, its effect on reliability, and any explanation offered.

Similarity percentages, automated flags, or suspicion alone do not establish malpractice. Results from screening tools must be reviewed by a human under the relevant policy.

Corrective action may still be necessary when findings are unreliable, even if misconduct has not been proven. Protecting the scholarly record is a separate matter from determining personal responsibility.

3. Proportionate Response
Concerns are received under the [Allegation of Research Misconduct] policy and examined under the Integrity Investigation procedure. All parties concerned are given a fair opportunity to respond. Outcomes are based on evidence, not on automatic penalties.

Depending on the findings, the journal may request clarification, reject a manuscript, reassess a compromised review, or refer the matter to a competent institution. Decisions about editorial or reviewer appointments follow the applicable governance arrangements.

Changes to a published article follow the journal’s Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern, and Scholarly Record Update procedures. The detailed criteria and notice procedures are maintained on those pages and are not repeated here.