Research Misconduct

1. Purpose and Scope

Jurnal Bina Hukum Lingkungan is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record in environmental law, spatial planning law, agrarian law, and related fields. This policy defines research and publication misconduct, sets out how allegations are handled, and describes the possible consequences. It applies to authors, reviewers, and editors, and follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is any act that distorts the research record or undermines the trust on which scholarly publishing depends, whether committed intentionally, recklessly, or through gross negligence. Honest error and legitimate differences in legal interpretation are not misconduct.

3. Forms of Misconduct

3.1 Fabrication

Inventing data, sources, or authorities, including:

  • citing statutes, regulations, court decisions, treaties, or doctrinal works that do not exist;
  • attributing quotations or holdings to a source that does not contain them;
  • inventing interview, survey, or field data in empirical and socio-legal research;
  • listing references that were not actually consulted.

3.2 Falsification

Manipulating research materials, processes, or results, including:

  • misrepresenting the content, status, or validity of a legal provision or judgment (for example, presenting a repealed or annulled norm as still in force);
  • selectively presenting sources or data so that the findings misrepresent the evidence;
  • altering interview records, field notes, or case data.

3.3 Plagiarism

Presenting another person’s words, ideas, analysis, or legal arguments as one’s own without proper attribution, including paraphrasing without citation and translating another work without acknowledgment. Plagiarism is also assessed through the originality (similarity) report required by the Journal’s Plagiarism Check policy.

3.4 Duplicate Submission, Redundant Publication, and Self-Plagiarism

  • submitting the same manuscript, or substantially the same one, to more than one journal at the same time;
  • publishing the same findings in more than one place without disclosure and permission;
  • reusing one’s own previously published text without citation;
  • splitting one study into several minimal publications (salami slicing).

3.5 Authorship Misconduct

Ghost, gift, and guest authorship, and any breach of the Authorship Criteria.

3.6 Misuse of Artificial Intelligence

Violating the Journal’s AI Policy, including undisclosed use of AI tools, exceeding the permitted AI-content limit, submitting falsified AI detection or originality reports, and submitting AI-generated content containing unverified or fabricated sources.

3.7 Citation and Peer Review Manipulation

  • excessive or unjustified self-citation, or citing a particular journal or person only to inflate citation counts;
  • coercing authors to cite particular works;
  • suggesting fake reviewers or reviewers with undisclosed conflicts of interest, or manipulating the review process;
  • reviewers appropriating or disclosing the content of manuscripts under review.

3.8 Ethical Breaches in Fieldwork

  • conducting research involving people or communities, including customary and local communities, without appropriate consent;
  • failing to protect the confidentiality and safety of informants and participants;
  • misrepresenting or exploiting community knowledge, including local wisdom and customary law, without acknowledgment.

3.9 Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failing to disclose financial, institutional, or personal interests that could reasonably be seen as influencing the research, the review, or the editorial decision.

4. Reporting Allegations

Anyone may report suspected misconduct to the Editorial Board in writing, by email to the Journal’s official address, with supporting evidence. The Journal treats reports confidentially and considers reports made in good faith, including anonymous ones that contain verifiable evidence. Knowingly making a false or malicious allegation is itself a breach of publication ethics.

5. Handling Procedure

  1. Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the allegation and the evidence to decide whether it falls within this policy.
  2. Notification and response. The authors or persons concerned are informed of the allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing.
  3. Investigation. The Editorial Board may consult independent experts, request original data or sources, and verify the evidence, following the relevant COPE flowcharts.
  4. Decision. The Editorial Board decides based on the evidence, the seriousness of the breach, and the explanations received. Reports from AI detection or similarity tools serve only as screening instruments, and no sanction is imposed on those reports alone.
  5. Communication. The persons concerned, and where appropriate the complainant, are informed of the outcome.

While an investigation is pending, the Journal may suspend the review or publication of the manuscript concerned.

6. Sanctions

Depending on the seriousness of the breach, the Editorial Board may:

  • require correction or clarification, and publish a correction notice;
  • reject the manuscript at any stage of the process;
  • publish an expression of concern;
  • retract a published article and publish a retraction notice, in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines;
  • notify the authors’ institution, funder, or the relevant authority;
  • bar the persons concerned from submitting, reviewing, or serving the Journal for a defined or indefinite period.

Retracted articles remain accessible with a clear retraction notice, so that the scholarly record stays transparent.

7. Corrections and Retractions

Where honest errors are found in a published article, the Journal will publish a correction. Where findings are unreliable because of misconduct or serious error, the Journal will retract the article. Authors are encouraged to notify the Journal promptly if they discover a significant error in their own published work.

8. Policy Review

The Editorial Board may revise this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics and in the Journal’s practices