Publishing Malpractice

ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning and Research) is committed to protecting the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the scholarly record. The journal takes allegations of research and publishing misconduct seriously and expects authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants in the publication process to uphold high standards of academic and professional conduct.

Publishing malpractice refers to actions or practices that intentionally, recklessly, or seriously compromise the integrity of research, authorship, peer review, publication, or the scholarly record.

ETERNAL investigates credible concerns fairly, confidentially, and proportionately. The journal may take corrective or disciplinary action when evidence indicates that research or publication integrity has been compromised.

This policy should be read together with ETERNAL's Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, Competing Interests, Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Corrections and Retractions policies.

1. Principles for Handling Misconduct

ETERNAL follows several fundamental principles when addressing suspected publishing malpractice:

allegations should be supported by credible information or evidence where possible;
all allegations should be assessed fairly and objectively;
individuals involved should be given an appropriate opportunity to respond;
investigations should be handled confidentially as far as reasonably possible;
the action taken should be proportionate to the seriousness and reliability of the evidence;
the journal should avoid making findings based solely on unverified allegations; and
where necessary, appropriate action should be taken to protect the integrity of the published scholarly record.

The journal may seek information from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, research organizations, or other relevant parties when necessary to assess a concern.

2. Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when a person presents another person's words, ideas, arguments, data, images, findings, or other intellectual contributions as their own without appropriate acknowledgement.

Plagiarism may include:

copying text without appropriate citation;
presenting another person's ideas or arguments without acknowledgement;
closely paraphrasing another work without appropriate attribution;
reproducing tables, figures, images, or other materials without appropriate acknowledgement or permission where required;
submitting another person's work as one's own; or
using substantial portions of previously published material without appropriate attribution.

ETERNAL may use similarity-checking tools as part of its editorial screening. However, similarity results are interpreted in context. A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism, as legitimate quotations, references, standard terminology, and methodological descriptions may also produce textual overlap.

Where substantial unattributed overlap is identified, the journal may request an explanation and may take appropriate editorial action depending on the circumstances.

3. Fabrication

Fabrication refers to making up data, participants, observations, results, sources, research procedures, or other information that did not actually exist.

Examples may include:

inventing participant responses;
creating research results without conducting the underlying research;
inventing interview transcripts;
creating observations that were never made;
reporting experiments or procedures that were never conducted; or
inventing references or sources.

Fabrication is a serious breach of research integrity. When credible evidence of fabrication is established, ETERNAL may reject the manuscript or take appropriate post-publication action if the article has already been published.

4. Falsification

Falsification involves manipulating research materials, procedures, data, images, analyses, or results in a way that misrepresents the research.

Examples may include:

altering or selectively manipulating research data;
removing observations solely to produce a desired result without appropriate methodological justification;
manipulating images or research materials in a misleading manner;
misrepresenting analytical procedures;
changing research procedures without accurately reporting the changes; or
presenting results in a manner that creates a materially misleading impression of the evidence.

Legitimate data cleaning, methodological decisions, statistical procedures, or analytical revisions are not considered falsification when they are appropriately justified and transparently reported.

5. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not publish substantially the same research as multiple independent publications without appropriate disclosure and justification.

Duplicate or redundant publication may include:

submitting substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal;
publishing substantially overlapping articles without appropriate disclosure;
dividing one study into multiple publications primarily to increase the number of publications without sufficient scholarly justification;
republishing previously published material as though it were new research; or
failing to disclose substantial overlap with the author's previous publications.

Authors should clearly disclose relevant previous publications, conference papers, preprints, datasets, or related manuscripts when these may overlap substantially with the submitted work.

ETERNAL may request clarification concerning substantial overlap before proceeding with a manuscript.

6. Simultaneous Submission

A manuscript submitted to ETERNAL must not normally be under active consideration by another journal at the same time.

Simultaneous submission can waste editorial and reviewer resources and may create the possibility of duplicate publication.

By submitting a manuscript, authors confirm that the manuscript is not simultaneously being considered elsewhere, unless the circumstances have been explicitly disclosed to and accepted by the relevant editors.

7. Authorship Misconduct

Authorship should accurately reflect meaningful scholarly contributions to the research and manuscript.

Authorship misconduct may include:

Guest or honorary authorship: listing an individual as an author despite insufficient contribution;
Gift authorship: adding an author because of status, position, seniority, friendship, or other inappropriate reasons;
Ghost authorship: excluding an individual who made a substantial contribution that would ordinarily warrant authorship;
Unauthorized authorship changes: adding or removing authors without appropriate agreement;
False authorship: providing inaccurate information concerning who contributed to the work; or
Misrepresentation of contribution: falsely describing an individual's role in the research.

All authors should approve the final manuscript and agree to take appropriate responsibility for their contributions.

Where an authorship dispute arises, ETERNAL may request clarification from the authors and, where necessary, seek assistance from the relevant institution or research organization.

8. Citation Manipulation

Citation practices should serve legitimate scholarly purposes.

Citation manipulation may include:

adding irrelevant references primarily to increase citation counts;
pressuring authors to cite particular individuals, journals, or publications without legitimate scholarly justification;
excessive self-citation intended primarily to inflate citation metrics;
coordinated citation practices designed to manipulate author or journal metrics; or
requesting unnecessary citations as a condition of publication or favorable review.

Reviewers and editors should recommend citations only when they are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Authors should also avoid selectively citing literature in ways that intentionally create a misleading representation of the state of research.

9. Peer Review Manipulation

ETERNAL considers the independence and integrity of peer review essential.

Peer-review manipulation may include:

providing false reviewer identities or contact information;
recommending reviewers with whom the author has an inappropriate relationship while concealing that relationship;
attempting to influence reviewers improperly;
impersonating reviewers;
submitting fabricated or manipulated review reports;
interfering with the editorial management system;
contacting reviewers directly to influence their decisions; or
using other methods to compromise the independence of peer review.

The journal may verify reviewer information and may take additional measures where the integrity of the review process is in question.

If peer-review manipulation is established, the journal may discontinue review, reject the manuscript, invalidate affected reviews, investigate related submissions, or take post-publication action where necessary.

10. Misrepresentation of Research

Authors must provide truthful and accurate information concerning their research.

Misrepresentation may involve:

claiming that research was conducted when it was not;
falsely describing participants or research settings;
misrepresenting research methods;
falsely reporting ethical approval;
misrepresenting institutional affiliation;
presenting unsupported claims as established findings;
selectively reporting evidence in a materially misleading manner;
misrepresenting funding or research support; or
providing false information during the submission or editorial process.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the information submitted to the journal is accurate and complete.

11. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Research involving human participants should comply with applicable ethical requirements.

Where ethical approval is required, authors should provide accurate information about the relevant approval, including the responsible institution or ethics committee where appropriate.

Where informed consent is required, authors must ensure that consent has been obtained in accordance with applicable ethical and institutional requirements.

Providing false information concerning ethical approval or informed consent may constitute publishing malpractice.

The journal may request evidence of ethical approval, informed consent, or other relevant documentation when concerns arise.

12. Data and Image Manipulation

Authors must report data and research materials accurately.

Data or image manipulation may constitute malpractice when it materially misrepresents the research.

Potential concerns may include:

altering research images to produce misleading results;
selectively modifying images without appropriate disclosure;
manipulating datasets to obtain predetermined outcomes;
selectively removing data without methodological justification;
changing values or observations without reporting the change; or
presenting manipulated materials as original or authentic research evidence.

Authors may use legitimate analytical or technical procedures when these are scientifically appropriate and transparently reported.

13. Fraudulent or Misleading References

References should correspond to genuine and relevant scholarly sources.

Publishing malpractice may include:

inventing references;
citing sources that do not support the claims for which they are cited;
intentionally misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
manipulating bibliographic information;
using fabricated citations generated by software or artificial intelligence without verification; or
deliberately including irrelevant references to influence citation metrics.

Authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy and relevance of their references before submission.

14. Artificial Intelligence-Related Misconduct

ETERNAL recognizes that AI-assisted tools may be used in research and manuscript preparation. However, the use of such tools does not remove the author's responsibility for the integrity of the work.

AI-related misconduct may include:

presenting AI-generated content as original scholarship without appropriate disclosure where disclosure is required;
using AI tools to fabricate data, findings, references, quotations, or research evidence;
submitting AI-generated citations without verifying their accuracy;
using AI to manipulate or falsify research materials;
using AI tools to impersonate authors, reviewers, or other individuals;
entering confidential peer-review material into AI systems in a manner that compromises confidentiality; or
using AI-assisted tools to deliberately conceal plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other misconduct.

Authors remain responsible for checking the accuracy, originality, and integrity of any material produced or assisted by AI tools.

15. Misconduct in Peer Review

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and independence.

Reviewer misconduct may include:

revealing confidential information about a manuscript;
sharing a manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
deliberately delaying a review without legitimate reason;
providing a biased or intentionally misleading review;
submitting a review prepared by another person without authorization;
using generative AI in a manner that compromises manuscript confidentiality; or
attempting to influence publication decisions for personal, professional, or competitive reasons.

Reviewers who identify a potential ethical problem should inform the editor rather than attempting to investigate or contact the authors independently.

16. Editorial Misconduct

Editors are expected to maintain professional independence and fairness.

Editorial misconduct may include:

making decisions based on personal, commercial, political, or institutional interests;
using confidential manuscript information for personal or professional advantage;
improperly influencing reviewers;
suppressing or favoring research for reasons unrelated to scholarly merit;
interfering with legitimate peer-review procedures;
failing to manage significant competing interests appropriately; or
improperly manipulating publication outcomes or journal metrics.

Where concerns involve an editor, the matter should be handled independently of the individual concerned whenever reasonably possible.

17. Misconduct Involving Journal Metrics

ETERNAL does not support manipulation of citation or publication metrics.

The following practices are inappropriate when undertaken primarily to manipulate journal or author performance indicators:

coercive citation;
excessive or irrelevant self-citation;
coordinated citation arrangements;
unnecessary citation requirements;
artificial inflation of downloads, citations, or other engagement indicators; or
other practices intended primarily to improve quantitative metrics without legitimate scholarly justification.

Academic quality and contribution should remain the primary basis for editorial decision-making.

18. Allegations of Publishing Malpractice

Concerns about possible malpractice may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, or other relevant parties.

Where possible, allegations should provide sufficient information to allow the journal to understand and assess the concern.

A concern may relate to:

a submitted manuscript;
a manuscript under peer review;
an accepted manuscript;
a published article;
an author's conduct;
a reviewer;
an editor; or
another aspect of the publication process.

The journal does not require allegations to be publicly disclosed. Confidential reporting is encouraged where appropriate.

19. Initial Assessment

When a credible allegation is received, the editorial team will conduct an initial assessment.

The purpose of the initial assessment is to determine:

whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibility;
whether sufficient information is available to assess the concern;
whether immediate action is necessary to protect the integrity of the publication process;
whether the manuscript or article should be temporarily suspended from further processing; and
whether further investigation or external consultation is appropriate.

The journal may request additional information or documentation from the relevant parties.

20. Investigation and Opportunity to Respond

Where further investigation is necessary, ETERNAL will seek to establish the relevant facts as fairly as possible.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:

request an explanation from the authors;
request supporting research records or documentation;
seek clarification from reviewers or editors;
consult relevant subject experts;
contact an author's institution or research organization;
seek advice from an appropriate research-integrity or publication-ethics body; or
examine related manuscripts or publications.

Individuals involved in an allegation should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to relevant concerns before a final editorial action is taken.

The extent of an investigation will depend on the seriousness and complexity of the matter.

21. Actions Before Publication

When malpractice is identified before publication, ETERNAL may take one or more of the following actions:

request clarification or correction;
require additional documentation;
suspend the editorial process;
require changes to the manuscript;
reject the manuscript;
invalidate affected peer reviews;
restrict further submission by the relevant authors for an appropriate period where justified; or
refer the matter to an appropriate institution or authority.

The action will depend on the nature, seriousness, evidence, and circumstances of the case.

22. Actions After Publication

Concerns may arise after an article has been published.

When credible post-publication concerns are identified, ETERNAL will assess the available evidence and determine whether the published record requires correction or other action.

Possible actions include:

Correction: used when an error can be appropriately corrected without fundamentally invalidating the article.
Expression of Concern: used when there is a significant unresolved concern about an article and further investigation is required.
Retraction: used when the reliability or integrity of a published article is substantially compromised.
Other Editorial Notice: used when another form of clarification is more appropriate.

Post-publication action is intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record rather than to punish authors.

23. Retraction

ETERNAL may consider retraction when a published article is found to contain serious problems that substantially undermine its reliability or integrity.

Possible reasons for retraction may include:

fabricated data;
falsified data or research procedures;
substantial plagiarism;
serious ethical violations;
major undisclosed conflicts that materially affect the article;
substantial duplicate publication;
fraudulent authorship or publication practices;
compromised peer review; or
other circumstances that make the published findings unreliable.

A retraction does not necessarily imply that every part of an article is incorrect. The purpose of retraction is to clearly identify that the article should no longer be relied upon as part of the scholarly evidence base.

24. Corrections

Not every error constitutes misconduct.

Authors may identify genuine errors after publication, and readers or editors may also bring errors to the journal's attention.

Where an error can be corrected without undermining the overall reliability of the article, ETERNAL may publish a correction or appropriate editorial notice.

The journal distinguishes honest error from deliberate fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other forms of misconduct.

25. Confidentiality and Protection of Individuals

ETERNAL will handle allegations of malpractice confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information will be shared only with individuals who need it for legitimate editorial, investigative, ethical, or institutional purposes.

The journal will seek to avoid unnecessary disclosure of allegations before sufficient evidence has been assessed.

At the same time, confidentiality should not prevent the journal from taking appropriate action when the integrity of the scholarly record is at risk.

26. Institutional Involvement

Some allegations may require investigation beyond the journal's authority or expertise.

When appropriate, ETERNAL may contact the relevant institution, university, research organization, ethics committee, funding body, or other competent authority.

The journal may rely on institutional investigations when these are conducted by an appropriate and independent authority.

Where an institution confirms research or publication misconduct, ETERNAL may take corresponding editorial action to protect the scholarly record.

27. False or Malicious Allegations

ETERNAL encourages good-faith reporting of genuine concerns. However, knowingly submitting false, malicious, or deliberately misleading allegations against authors, reviewers, editors, or other individuals is inappropriate.

The journal may disregard allegations that are clearly unsupported, abusive, defamatory, or made primarily to harm another individual's professional reputation.

This provision does not prevent legitimate concerns from being raised simply because they cannot immediately be substantiated.

28. Cooperation with Investigations

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to cooperate reasonably with legitimate investigations into research or publication integrity.

Authors may be asked to provide:

original data or research records;
ethical approval documentation;
informed-consent information where appropriate;
evidence concerning authorship;
information concerning previous publications;
clarification of research procedures;
explanations of substantial textual overlap; or
other documentation relevant to the concern.

Failure to provide reasonable clarification or supporting documentation may be considered when determining appropriate editorial action.

29. Appeals and Responses

Individuals affected by an editorial action related to suspected malpractice may provide relevant information or clarification to the journal.

An appeal should identify the basis for the request and provide substantive information that was not previously considered or that may materially affect the decision.

An appeal is not intended simply to challenge an editorial decision without new evidence or a substantive procedural concern.

Where appropriate, the journal may arrange for an independent editor or another qualified person to review the matter.

30. Record Keeping

ETERNAL will maintain appropriate records concerning significant allegations, investigations, editorial decisions, and post-publication actions.

Records will be handled confidentially and retained in accordance with applicable institutional and legal requirements.

Maintaining appropriate records allows the journal to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in its handling of research and publication-integrity concerns.

31. Commitment to Research Integrity

ETERNAL recognizes that maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing is a shared responsibility.

The journal therefore seeks to:

prevent misconduct where reasonably possible;
identify credible concerns promptly;
investigate concerns fairly and confidentially;
provide appropriate opportunities for response;
take proportionate editorial action;
correct the published record when necessary; and
maintain public trust in the research it publishes.

ETERNAL is committed to ensuring that the scholarly record reflects research that has been conducted, reported, reviewed, and published responsibly.

The journal will continue to review and update this policy as standards and practices in research integrity and scholarly publishing develop.