Research Misconduct and Publishing Malpractice

Journal Software, Hardware and Information Technology (SHIFT) takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Allegations are handled confidentially, fairly, and in accordance with the flowcharts and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

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

  • Fabrication: making up data, results, or records.
  • Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, or images, or omitting data, so that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and translation plagiarism, as defined in our Plagiarism Policy.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication, and simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal.
  • Authorship misconduct, such as guest, gift, or ghost authorship, or adding or removing authors without the agreement of all authors (see Authorship).
  • Citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation or coercive citation by editors or reviewers.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest (see Conflict of Interest Policy).
  • Misuse of generative AI contrary to our Generative AI Policy, such as fabricating data, results, or references.
  • Unethical research, including the use of data without the necessary permission or consent.
  • Peer review manipulation, including fake reviewer identities or breaches of the confidentiality of the review process.

Reporting an allegation
Anyone, including readers, authors, reviewers, and editors, may report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected] (alternative: [email protected]). A report should identify the manuscript or article concerned and include supporting evidence. Anonymous reports are considered if they contain sufficient and verifiable evidence. The identity of the person raising the concern is kept confidential.

Procedure

  1. Initial assessment: the Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the allegation falls within the journal's remit and whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed. Editors with a conflict of interest in the case do not take part.
  2. Request for explanation: the authors are informed of the concern, given the evidence, and invited to respond within a reasonable time.
  3. Evaluation: the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board and, where necessary, independent experts, evaluates the evidence and the authors' response.
  4. Institutional investigation: if the matter cannot be resolved by the journal, or the authors do not respond, the journal may refer the case to the authors' institution or another appropriate body and request an investigation.
  5. Decision: the decision is based solely on the evidence and is communicated to the authors and, where appropriate, to the person who raised the concern.

Possible actions

  • Before publication: return of the manuscript for correction, or rejection.
  • After publication: a correction, an Expression of Concern, or a retraction, in accordance with our Retraction and Correction policy.
  • In serious or repeated cases: notification of the authors' institutions, and refusal of further submissions from the authors for a period determined by the Editorial Board.
  • Allegations concerning reviewers or editors are handled in the same way, and may lead to their removal from the review or editorial process.