Misconduct, Complaints & Appelas

JECO ( Journal of Economic Education of Eco-Technopreneurship) takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Allegations, complaints, and appeals are handled confidentially, fairly, and promptly, following the guidance and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Misconduct

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

  • fabrication or falsification of data, images, or results;
  • plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and text recycling without acknowledgement;
  • duplicate, redundant, or simultaneous submission or publication;
  • authorship misconduct (ghost, gift, or guest authorship, or unagreed changes to the author list);
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • research involving human participants without ethical approval or informed consent;
  • citation manipulation and manipulation of the peer-review process (including fake reviewer identities);
  • undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative AI, as defined in the journal's Gen AI Policy.

2. Reporting an Allegation

Anyone may report suspected misconduct concerning a manuscript under review or a published article by emailing the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. Reports should identify the manuscript or article (title and DOI) and describe the concern with supporting evidence. The identity of the person raising the concern will be kept confidential. Anonymous reports will be considered if they are supported by sufficient evidence.

3. Investigation Procedure

  1. Acknowledgement: the Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the report within 7 working days.
  2. Preliminary assessment: the Editor examines the evidence (e.g., similarity reports, data, images, review records) with at least one other member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest.
  3. Author response: if the concern is substantiated, the corresponding author is contacted, informed of the concern, and given the opportunity to respond, usually within 30 days.
  4. Escalation: if the response is unsatisfactory or no response is received, the journal will contact the authors' institution(s) and request an investigation. The journal may also seek advice from COPE.
  5. Decision: the outcome is communicated to the authors and to the person who raised the concern.

4. Possible Outcomes

  • For manuscripts under review: rejection of the manuscript, and the authors may be barred from submitting to the journal for a defined period.
  • For published articles: publication of a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, in accordance with the journal's Article Correction and Retraction Policy; notification of the authors' institution(s) and relevant indexing services.
  • If the allegation is unfounded, the case is closed and the authors are informed.

5. Complaints

Complaints about the journal's editorial process, staff, or policies should be sent to [email protected] with the subject line "Complaint". The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges complaints within 7 working days and aims to provide a full response within 30 days. Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief are handled by an independent member of the Editorial Board or by the publisher, Universitas Nurul Huda.

6. Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that a rejection decision was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding may submit one appeal per manuscript within 30 days of the decision. The appeal must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief and should explain in detail, with evidence, why the decision should be reconsidered; it should respond point by point to the reviewers' comments. The appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision and, where necessary, by an additional independent reviewer. The decision on the appeal is final. A manuscript under appeal must not be submitted to another journal until the appeal is concluded.