Alleged breaches of research and publication integrity include, but are not limited to, the following categories:

• Plagiarism: Using another person's ideas, text, data, or scholarly work without proper attribution or citation.
• Data Fabrication & Falsification: Manufacturing fictitious data or manipulating research methods, images, sources, or results to misrepresent findings.
• Duplicate Publication & Simultaneous Submission: Submitting substantially overlapping work without full disclosure, or submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently.
• Citation & Peer-Review Manipulation: Inappropriate citation practices to manipulate metrics, or compromising review independence (e.g., identity fraud or suggesting fake reviewers).
• Research Ethics Violations: Conducting research without required institutional ethical approval, breaching informant/participant confidentiality, or misusing personal data.
• Authorship Manipulation & Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Ghost, guest, or gift authorship, omitting legitimate contributors, or concealing relevant financial and non-financial competing interests.
• Misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Using AI tools to fabricate research data, generate falsified citations, or failing to disclose substantive AI assistance as required by journal policy.

*Note: Genuine differences in scientific interpretation, honest errors, or divergent theoretical paradigms do not automatically constitute research misconduct.

Any individual—including readers, authors, reviewers, or editors—may report suspected misconduct through the official contact channels on the journal's website. Reports should provide:

• Identification of the specific manuscript or published article (title, authors, DOI).
• A detailed, factual description of the suspected misconduct.
• Verifiable documentation or supporting evidence (e.g., comparative texts, original datasets).

Anonymous reports are examined if they provide sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry. The editorial team handles all allegations confidentially to protect the identity of whistleblowers and concerned parties.

1. Receipt & Documentation: The editorial office logs the complaint and securely archives all submitted evidence.
2. Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the prima facie credibility and substance of the claim.
3. Request for Clarification: Authors or affected parties are contacted and provided an opportunity to respond with explanations and evidence.
4. Further Investigation: If unresolved, the editorial team may consult external subject experts, the editorial board, or the author's host institution.
5. Editorial Decision: An evidence-based determination is reached in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
6. Follow-up & Archival: Formal outcomes are documented, and appropriate publication records are updated.

The journal may temporarily pause editorial handling or publication while an active inquiry is conducted.

• For Unpublished Submissions: Outcomes range from requiring formal revisions to desk rejection and possible temporary submission bans for confirmed, severe bad-faith misconduct.
• For Published Articles: Where evidence dictates, actions include publishing an Erratum/Corrigendum (for unintentional errors), an Expression of Concern (for unresolved, high-risk investigations), or a formal Retraction (for substantiated scientific fraud or severe plagiarism).