Research Misconduct and Allegations Policy

Scope

The Dyal Singh Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (DSJHSS) takes credible concerns about research and publication integrity seriously.

Potential misconduct may include, among other matters:

·        fabrication or falsification of data, evidence or findings;

·        plagiarism or substantial unattributed copying;

·        deliberate misrepresentation of sources;

·        inappropriate image, figure or data manipulation;

·        duplicate or redundant publication;

·        citation manipulation;

·        fraudulent or misleading authorship;

·        manipulation of peer review;

·        undisclosed conflicts that materially affect the work;

·        unethical research involving participants or confidential information; or

·        intentional misrepresentation during submission, review or publication.

Raising a Concern

Concerns should be sent to editor@dsjhss.gdscl.com.pk and should identify the article or manuscript and provide sufficient detail and evidence for the journal to understand the allegation.

Anonymous allegations may be considered where they contain specific, credible and verifiable information.

Initial Assessment

The journal will first determine whether the concern falls within its remit and whether there is sufficient information to justify further inquiry. Allegations will not be treated as proven merely because they have been made.

Where appropriate, the person or persons whose work is questioned will be given an opportunity to respond.

Investigation and Institutional Referral

The journal's role is principally to protect the integrity of the publication process and scholarly record. DSJHSS may request source material, data, documentation, ethical approvals or explanations necessary to evaluate a concern.

Where an allegation requires powers or expertise beyond the journal's role, the journal may contact the relevant institution, employer, research ethics body, funder or other competent authority and may rely on a formal institutional investigation.

The journal may seek guidance from recognized publication-ethics frameworks, including COPE guidance, without representing itself as a COPE member unless that status is separately obtained and stated.

Confidentiality and Fairness

Information concerning an allegation will be shared only as reasonably necessary for review, response, advice or institutional investigation. Editors should avoid public accusations while a matter remains unresolved.

Decisions should distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error, methodological disagreement or legitimate differences in scholarly interpretation.

Possible Outcomes

Depending on the evidence and stage of publication, the journal may:

·        take no further action;

·        request clarification or correction;

·        reject a manuscript;

·        suspend editorial processing while an inquiry is underway;

·        correct a published article;

·        issue an expression of concern;

·        retract an article; or

·        refer the matter to an appropriate institution or authority.

Post-publication action will follow the journal's Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Post-Publication Discussion Policy.