Allegations of Misconduct
Allegations of Misconduct
JBMA takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and is committed to addressing concerns fairly, confidentially and proportionately while protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.
Allegations may arise before publication, during peer review or after an article has been published. JBMA will assess credible concerns in accordance with recognised publication-ethics principles and, where appropriate, seek clarification from authors, reviewers, institutions, experts or other relevant parties before determining the appropriate editorial action.
1. What May Constitute Misconduct?
Research and publication misconduct may include deliberate or serious practices that compromise the authenticity, reliability, transparency or integrity of scholarly work or the publication process.
Concerns considered by JBMA may include, but are not limited to:
Honest error, legitimate methodological disagreement or differences in scholarly interpretation are not automatically treated as misconduct. Each concern will be assessed according to its nature, evidence and potential effect on the scholarly record.
2. Reporting a Concern
Anyone may raise a credible concern regarding a manuscript under consideration, a published article, the peer-review process or other publication-related conduct associated with JBMA.
A report should, where possible, include:
- the manuscript or article title and other identifying information;
- a clear description of the concern;
- specific evidence or documentation supporting the allegation;
- relevant sources, links, datasets, images or records where applicable; and
- contact information for follow-up, unless the concern is submitted anonymously.
Concerns should be submitted through the journal's official contact channel. Vague allegations unsupported by identifiable concerns or evidence may be difficult to investigate.
JBMA will consider credible concerns regardless of whether the individual raising the concern identifies themselves. Anonymous allegations will be assessed on the strength and specificity of the evidence provided. The identity of a complainant will be treated confidentially where appropriate and practicable.
3. How JBMA Handles Allegations
Concern Received
The Editorial Office records the allegation and reviews the information provided to determine whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibility and warrants further assessment.
Preliminary Assessment
The Editor assesses the credibility, specificity and potential seriousness of the allegation, available evidence and any relevant conflicts of interest. Additional documentation may be requested where necessary.
Author or Relevant Party Response
Where appropriate, the corresponding author or other relevant party will be informed of the concern and invited to provide a substantive response, clarification and supporting evidence. The corresponding author may be asked to respond on behalf of all co-authors.
Further Evaluation
The Editor may seek additional assessment from independent experts, statistical or methodological reviewers, Editorial Board members or other appropriately qualified individuals where specialist evaluation is required.
Institutional Referral Where Necessary
Where the concern requires investigation beyond the journal's capacity—for example, questions involving the authenticity of research data, research conduct or institutional records—the journal may contact the relevant institution, research-integrity office, publisher or other appropriate body.
Editorial Resolution
After considering the available evidence, responses and any institutional or expert findings, JBMA will determine the editorial action necessary to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
Journal Assessment vs Institutional Investigation
JBMA is responsible for the integrity of its editorial processes and published scholarly record. The journal may assess evidence, request clarification, pause editorial processing and take appropriate publication-related action.
Formal investigation of the conduct of researchers, access to institutional records or determination of research misconduct may require action by the authors' institution or another competent authority. JBMA will cooperate with relevant institutions where such investigation is necessary.
4. Allegations Concerning Manuscripts Under Review
Where a credible ethical concern arises before publication, the editorial process may be paused while the matter is assessed.
Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the concern, possible outcomes include:
- no further action where the allegation is unsupported;
- request for clarification, correction or additional documentation;
- additional methodological or ethical review;
- withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration;
- rejection on ethical or integrity grounds; or
- referral to an institution or other relevant authority where further investigation is necessary.
5. Concerns Raised After Publication
Published articles remain subject to appropriate post-publication scrutiny. Where a credible concern is raised, JBMA will assess whether the reliability, interpretation or integrity of the article or scholarly record has been affected.
Where additional explanation resolves a concern without altering the published conclusions.
Where a material error requires amendment but does not invalidate the central findings.
Where substantial concerns exist but the evidence or investigation remains incomplete.
Where findings are unreliable or serious ethical or publication-integrity problems compromise the article.
6. Proportionate Editorial Action
JBMA does not assume misconduct merely because an allegation has been made. Editorial action will reflect the evidence available, the seriousness of the concern and its effect on the reliability of the manuscript or published record.
Where misconduct is not established but an error or omission materially affects the article, an appropriate correction or clarification may be sufficient. Retraction is reserved for cases where the reliability or integrity of the published work has been fundamentally compromised.
7. Conflicts of Interest in Misconduct Investigations
Editors or individuals involved in evaluating an allegation must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably compromise their impartiality.
Where a conflict exists, responsibility for managing the concern will be transferred to another suitably qualified and independent individual.
Where appropriate, JBMA may also consider relevant conflicts of interest involving the individual raising an allegation.
8. Confidentiality
Allegations of misconduct will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. Information will be shared only with individuals or organisations that require it for legitimate editorial, investigative, institutional or legal purposes.
Confidentiality should not be interpreted as preventing JBMA from contacting relevant institutions, publishers, journals or authorities when doing so is necessary to investigate a serious concern or protect the scholarly record.
9. Good-Faith Concerns and Responsible Reporting
Individuals are encouraged to raise genuine concerns in good faith and provide sufficient evidence to permit appropriate assessment.
Deliberately false, malicious, harassing or repeatedly unsupported allegations may themselves constitute inappropriate conduct and may not be pursued further by the journal.
10. Preservation of the Scholarly Record
The principal objective of JBMA when addressing misconduct concerns is to ensure that readers can continue to rely on the accuracy, provenance and integrity of the journal's published record.
Corrections, expressions of concern and retraction notices will normally remain publicly linked to the original article so that changes to the scholarly record are transparent.
In handling allegations of research and publication misconduct, JBMA may refer to relevant guidance and flowcharts issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other recognised research-integrity frameworks where appropriate.
COPE Guidance on Misconduct →Concerns Are Assessed Fairly. The Scholarly Record Comes First.
JBMA seeks to resolve allegations through evidence-based assessment, appropriate institutional cooperation and proportionate editorial action while maintaining confidentiality, fairness and research integrity.
Editorial Policy Publication Ethics Contact JBMA →