Allegations of Misconduct Policy

The Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics" is committed to maintaining high standards of research integrity, publication ethics, accountability, procedural fairness, and transparency.

The journal recognizes its responsibility to respond appropriately to credible concerns relating to submitted or published work, peer review, authorship, editorial conduct, or other aspects of the publication process.

This policy establishes the procedures for reporting, assessing, investigating, and resolving allegations of research, publication, peer review, and editorial misconduct before and after publication.

All allegations will be considered fairly, confidentially, consistently, and without presuming misconduct before the available evidence has been assessed.

The journal’s actions are guided by the COPE Core Practices, relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, and the journal’s applicable policies.

Definition of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes intentional, knowing, reckless, or seriously negligent conduct that compromises the reliability, originality, legality, ethics, or transparency of scholarly work or the publication process.

An honest error, legitimate scientific disagreement, methodological limitation, or difference in interpretation does not automatically constitute misconduct.

However, such matters may still require correction or other action when they affect the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Scope of Misconduct

Misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following categories.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes presenting another person’s words, ideas, methods, data, figures, images, results, computer code, models, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate attribution.

It may include:

direct copying;
close paraphrasing without acknowledgment;
translation plagiarism;
plagiarism of ideas or methods;
unauthorized reuse of figures, tables, images, or code;
inappropriate reuse of previously published text;
presenting another person’s unpublished material as one’s own.

Properly cited quotation, legitimate reuse permitted by a license, and limited repetition of standard methodological language do not automatically constitute plagiarism.

Fabrication

Fabrication includes inventing data, observations, experiments, simulations, calculations, participants, results, references, or other research information and presenting them as genuine.

Falsification

Falsification includes manipulating research materials, equipment, methods, calculations, computer models, images, data, or processes, or selectively omitting information, in a manner that creates a misleading representation of the research.

Inappropriate Image, Figure, or Data Manipulation

Misconduct may include:

altering images or figures in a misleading manner;
removing, adding, moving, or concealing relevant features;
reusing images or datasets without disclosure;
presenting duplicated data as independent results;
manipulating graphs, scales, axes, error bars, or visualizations to misrepresent findings;
selectively reporting data in a way that materially distorts the results.

Legitimate technical adjustments must be applied consistently and must not obscure, remove, or misrepresent relevant information.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication includes publishing or attempting to publish substantially the same work, data, analysis, or conclusions more than once without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, and cross-referencing.

Related manuscripts, conference papers, preprints, reports, theses, datasets, or previous publications must be transparently disclosed where relevant.

Simultaneous Submission

Authors must not submit the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.

Inappropriate Fragmentation of Research

Dividing one coherent study into multiple minimally distinct publications primarily to increase publication count may constitute inappropriate publication practice when it results in substantial overlap, incomplete reporting, or misleading presentation of the research.

Authorship and Contributorship Misconduct

Authorship misconduct may include:

guest authorship;
gift or honorary authorship;
ghost authorship;
purchased or sold authorship;
coercive authorship;
omission of qualifying contributors;
inclusion of persons who did not make a qualifying contribution;
unauthorized addition, removal, or reordering of authors;
false statements about author contributions;
submission without the knowledge or approval of all listed authors.

Authorship matters will also be considered under the journal’s Authorship Principles.

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a relevant financial, institutional, professional, academic, intellectual, or personal competing interest may constitute misconduct where the omission affects, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, research, peer review, editorial assessment, or publication.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation may include:

requiring irrelevant citations primarily to increase citation counts;
coordinated citation agreements;
excessive self-citation without scholarly justification;
adding references that were not consulted;
using fabricated or unverifiable references;
pressuring authors to cite a particular researcher, journal, institution, or group for non-scientific reasons.

Peer Review Manipulation

Peer review manipulation may include:

providing fabricated reviewer names or contact information;
recommending reviewers whose accounts are controlled by an author or related party;
impersonating another researcher;
creating false reviewer reports;
establishing coordinated review rings;
interfering with reviewer selection;
attempting to identify, influence, intimidate, or retaliate against reviewers;
unauthorized delegation of a review;
using confidential manuscript information for personal advantage.

Editorial Misconduct

Editorial misconduct may include:

making decisions on non-academic grounds;
failing to disclose a relevant conflict of interest;
improperly interfering with peer review;
disclosing confidential manuscript or reviewer information;
using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage;
discriminating against authors or reviewers;
manipulating citations or publication decisions;
giving preferential treatment to editors, Board members, institutions, sponsors, or paying authors;
suppressing legitimate ethical concerns.

Ethical Violations in Research

Ethical misconduct may include:

conducting research without required institutional approval;
providing false or misleading ethics approval information;
failing to obtain required informed consent;
violating participant privacy or confidentiality;
unauthorized use of identifiable personal data;
failure to comply with applicable animal welfare requirements;
breaching legal, safety, environmental, institutional, or regulatory requirements;
misrepresenting the ethical status of a study.

Data, Code, and Materials Misrepresentation

Misconduct may include:

falsely claiming that data, code, models, protocols, or materials are available;
knowingly providing incomplete, manipulated, or unrelated supporting files;
destroying or concealing relevant research records after concerns have been raised;
refusing reasonable editorial requests for supporting evidence without an adequate explanation;
misrepresenting legal, ethical, commercial, or confidentiality restrictions.

A legitimate inability to share data because of legal, ethical, privacy, commercial, security, or third-party restrictions does not constitute misconduct when the limitation is accurately disclosed.

Misuse of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Misconduct involving artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools may include:

listing an AI tool as an author;
using AI-generated fabricated data, references, calculations, evidence, or quotations;
failing to verify AI-generated content;
using AI tools in a way that violates confidentiality or intellectual property rights;
concealing reportable AI use;
presenting AI-generated content as independently produced human scholarship where disclosure is required;
using AI to manipulate peer review or editorial communication.

Relevant cases will also be considered under the journal’s Policy on the Use of AI Tools.

Other Misconduct

The journal may also consider other conduct that materially compromises:

the reliability of the research;
the integrity of peer review;
the accuracy of the scholarly record;
participant or animal welfare;
confidentiality;
copyright or intellectual property;
editorial independence;
trust in the publication process.

Who May Report an Allegation

An allegation may be submitted by:

authors;
co-authors;
reviewers;
editors;
Editorial Board members;
readers;
research participants;
institutions;
ethics committees;
research integrity offices;
funding organizations;
regulatory bodies;
publishers or other journals;
anonymous or identified whistleblowers;
any other person or organization with relevant information.

The journal will assess the substance and credibility of the information rather than the complainant’s status, academic position, institutional affiliation, or identity.

Submitting an Allegation

Allegations must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office at:

instmechofficial@gmail.com

The subject line should preferably state:

Allegation of misconduct concerning [manuscript ID, article title, or DOI]

A report should include, where available:

the name and contact details of the person reporting the concern;
the manuscript title and identification number;
the article title, DOI, or publication details;
a clear description of the alleged misconduct;
the specific data, text, figures, images, references, processes, or actions concerned;
relevant dates;
names and roles of the persons involved;
supporting documents, links, correspondence, or other evidence;
disclosure of any relevant competing interest;
information about whether the matter has been reported elsewhere.

The person reporting the concern should distinguish verifiable facts from assumptions, interpretations, or allegations.

Reports should avoid defamatory, threatening, discriminatory, or unnecessarily personal language.

Anonymous Allegations

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

The journal will not dismiss a concern solely because the person reporting it is anonymous.

However, anonymity may limit the journal’s ability to:

seek clarification;
verify evidence;
assess motivation or competing interests;
communicate the outcome;
conduct a complete investigation.

Anonymous allegations that contain no identifiable issue or verifiable supporting information may be closed without further action.

Good-Faith Reporting and Protection From Retaliation

The journal will not retaliate against a person who reports a concern honestly and in good faith.

A good-faith allegation will not negatively affect:

the consideration of a current manuscript;
future submissions;
reviewer appointments;
editorial communication;
legitimate academic relations with the journal.

The journal will not knowingly permit its editorial processes to be used to retaliate against a whistleblower, complainant, author, reviewer, or other participant.

This protection does not extend to deliberately false, fabricated, malicious, threatening, harassing, or discriminatory allegations.

Confidentiality

Allegations will be handled with an appropriate degree of confidentiality.

Information will normally be disclosed only to persons who require it to assess, investigate, respond to, or resolve the concern.

The identity of a whistleblower or complainant will be protected where reasonably possible. However, complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where:

disclosure is necessary for procedural fairness;
the respondent must be given an opportunity to answer;
an institutional investigation is required;
a legal or regulatory obligation applies;
protection of the scholarly record requires disclosure.

The journal will not disclose sensitive personal information that is not necessary for resolving the matter.

Conflicts of Interest in Handling Allegations

A person must not assess or investigate an allegation where that person:

is the subject of the allegation;
participated in the disputed conduct;
has a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic conflict;
made the editorial decision under investigation;
has another relationship that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where a conflict exists, the allegation will be assigned to an independent editor, Editorial Board member, publisher representative, or external adviser.

Allegations Concerning the Editor-in-Chief

An allegation concerning the Editor-in-Chief must not be investigated or decided solely by the Editor-in-Chief.

The matter may be referred to:

an independent senior Editorial Board member;
the publisher;
a representative designated by the Founder;
an external research integrity adviser;
another competent and independent person or body.

The Editor-in-Chief must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond but must not control the investigation or outcome.

Allegations Concerning the Publisher

An allegation concerning I-EDU GROUP LLC, its management, or a person acting on behalf of the publisher must be reviewed with independent oversight.

The matter may be assigned to:

an independent Editorial Board representative;
a representative designated by the Founder;
an external adviser;
another competent institutional authority.

The publisher must not determine the outcome of an allegation concerning its own conduct without independent assessment.

Preliminary Assessment

The journal will normally acknowledge receipt of an allegation within five working days.

During the preliminary assessment, the journal will determine:

whether the allegation concerns the journal, a submitted manuscript, or published content;
whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy;
whether sufficient information has been provided;
whether the allegation is specific and potentially verifiable;
whether immediate action is required;
whether another journal policy applies;
whether a conflict of interest exists;
whether relevant records should be preserved;
whether the matter should be referred to an institution or competent authority.

The journal may request clarification or additional evidence.

A full investigation will not be initiated solely on the basis of vague suspicion, personal disagreement, or unsupported accusation.

Preservation of Records and Evidence

When a credible allegation is received, the journal may preserve relevant records, including:

submitted manuscript files;
revised files;
supplementary materials;
reviewer invitations and reports;
editorial correspondence;
authorship declarations;
ethics documentation;
conflict-of-interest statements;
metadata;
submission-system records;
technical logs;
publication files.

The journal may ask authors, reviewers, or institutions to preserve original data and relevant documentation while the matter is being considered.

Preservation of records does not imply that misconduct has been established.

Notification and Opportunity to Respond

Where an allegation proceeds beyond preliminary assessment, the person or persons concerned will normally be informed of the substantive concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The notification should:

describe the concern sufficiently clearly;
identify the relevant manuscript or publication;
request an explanation or supporting evidence;
specify a reasonable response period;
avoid revealing unnecessary confidential information;
avoid prejudging the outcome.

The journal may delay notification where immediate disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence, compromise an institutional investigation, or create another serious risk.

Editorial Assessment and External Investigation

The journal may conduct an editorial assessment to determine:

whether the publication process was compromised;
whether a submitted manuscript should continue to be considered;
whether published content remains reliable;
whether a correction, expression of concern, or retraction may be required;
whether the matter should be referred to an institution.

The journal does not normally have the authority or resources to conduct a complete institutional investigation into research misconduct, determine employment sanctions, or make legal findings.

Where formal investigation is required, the journal may refer the matter to:

the author’s or reviewer’s institution;
a research integrity office;
an ethics committee;
a funding organization;
a regulatory body;
another competent authority.

The journal may provide relevant information to such bodies where this is necessary and lawful.

Cooperation With Institutions

Where an institution is contacted, the journal may request:

acknowledgment of the referral;
confirmation that the matter will be assessed;
an expected timeframe;
notification of relevant findings;
information necessary to determine the reliability of the manuscript or publication.

The journal will not require access to confidential personnel information that is not relevant to the scholarly record.

The journal may continue its own editorial action while an institutional investigation is ongoing where this is necessary to protect readers or the integrity of the publication process.

Timeliness

The journal aims to complete its initial assessment within 30 calendar days, where reasonably possible.

Complex cases involving several publications, multiple institutions, technical analysis, international cooperation, or legal issues may require substantially more time.

Institutional investigations are outside the journal’s direct control and may take longer.

Where appropriate, involved parties will be informed of significant delays or major procedural developments.

Timeframes are operational targets and do not represent absolute guarantees.

Allegations Before Publication

Where a credible allegation concerns a submitted manuscript, the journal may:

pause peer review;
suspend an editorial decision;
delay acceptance or publication;
request explanations or supporting evidence;
request original data, calculations, code, images, models, ethics records, or authorship documentation;
replace an editor or reviewer;
obtain additional independent review;
refer the matter to an institution or competent authority.

A pause in processing does not imply that misconduct has been established.

If the concern is resolved satisfactorily, editorial consideration may continue.

If the manuscript is unreliable, unethical, improperly submitted, or affected by serious misconduct, the journal may reject it.

Allegations After Acceptance but Before Publication

If an allegation arises after acceptance but before publication, production may be suspended while the matter is assessed.

Acceptance may be withdrawn where:

essential information was concealed;
the manuscript is found to be unreliable;
required ethical approval was absent or misrepresented;
authorship or peer review was manipulated;
the work substantially duplicates another publication;
another serious policy violation is confirmed.

Withdrawal of acceptance must be documented in the journal’s internal records.

Allegations After Publication

Concerns raised after publication will be assessed regardless of how much time has passed since publication.

The journal may:

contact the authors;
request data or documentation;
obtain independent expert review;
contact relevant institutions;
publish an editorial note;
publish a correction;
publish an expression of concern;
retract the article;
update relevant metadata and indexing records.

The appropriate action will depend on the reliability of the publication, the seriousness of the issue, the available evidence, and the outcome of any external investigation.

Corrections

A correction may be issued where an error or omission:

does not invalidate the principal findings;
can be accurately corrected;
does not require withdrawal of the full article;
is important for readers or the scholarly record.

A correction may be required even when the error was honest and no misconduct occurred.

Corrections will be clearly identified and electronically linked to the original article.

Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published where:

credible concerns exist about a publication;
an investigation is incomplete;
an institutional response is significantly delayed;
evidence is inconclusive but readers should be alerted;
the journal is unable to obtain information necessary to reach a final decision;
there is a serious dispute concerning the reliability or ethical status of the article.

The notice will explain the reason for concern without making unsupported allegations.

It will be linked to the original article and updated, replaced, or followed by a correction or retraction when further information becomes available.

Retractions

An article may be retracted where the journal concludes that:

the findings or conclusions are unreliable;
the work contains fabricated or falsified data;
plagiarism materially affects the publication;
the article substantially duplicates previously published work without appropriate disclosure;
peer review or authorship was seriously manipulated;
the research was conducted or reported unethically;
publication occurred without required authorization or consent;
copyright or other serious legal rights were infringed;
another serious breach invalidates confidence in the article.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and alert readers that the article should not be relied upon. It is not primarily a disciplinary punishment.

Retraction notices will be freely accessible, clearly identify the affected article, explain the reason for retraction, identify who is retracting the article, and be electronically linked to the original publication.

The original article will normally remain accessible but will be clearly marked as retracted.

Possible Outcomes

Following assessment, the journal may conclude that:

no further action is required;
the allegation is unsupported;
additional information is needed;
an honest error occurred;
a policy violation occurred without sufficient evidence of misconduct;
misconduct appears likely and institutional investigation is required;
misconduct was confirmed by a competent investigation;
the publication process was compromised;
the published record requires correction or retraction.

The journal will distinguish, as far as possible, among:

honest error;
disagreement;
poor research practice;
negligence;
reckless conduct;
deliberate misconduct.

Corrective and Protective Actions

Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the case, the journal may:

request clarification or documentation;
require revision of declarations or metadata;
pause or terminate peer review;
replace an editor or reviewer;
reject a manuscript;
withdraw acceptance;
publish a correction;
publish an editorial note;
publish an Expression of Concern;
retract an article;
correct authorship or conflict-of-interest information;
notify an institution, funder, ethics committee, or competent authority;
remove a fraudulent reviewer account;
restrict involvement in editorial or peer review activities;
apply a proportionate temporary restriction on submissions in serious or repeated cases;
review other submissions or publications where there is a justified reason to believe they may be affected.

Any restriction or sanction will be proportionate, documented, and based on the available evidence. It will not substitute for an institutional or legal determination where such a determination is required.

Communication of Outcomes

Where appropriate, the journal may communicate the outcome to:

the person who reported the concern;
the respondent;
the authors;
editors or reviewers involved;
relevant institutions;
funding or regulatory bodies;
readers through a public notice.

Confidential personnel, legal, or institutional information will not be disclosed unnecessarily.

The journal may be unable to provide the complainant with full details of an investigation because of confidentiality, privacy, or legal restrictions.

Unsupported or Malicious Allegations

An allegation will not be considered malicious merely because it is not substantiated.

However, the journal may limit or terminate correspondence where an allegation is:

knowingly false;
supported by fabricated evidence;
threatening;
discriminatory;
abusive;
repeatedly submitted without new information;
intended to harass a person;
made primarily to manipulate an editorial outcome.

Any credible research integrity concern contained within an inappropriate communication will still be assessed on its merits.

Complaints and Appeals About the Process

A person who believes that an allegation was handled unfairly may submit a reasoned complaint under the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

The complaint should identify:

the disputed procedural action;
the alleged factual or procedural error;
relevant supporting evidence;
the remedy requested.

A disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient unless a significant procedural, factual, or conflict-of-interest concern is identified.

Record-Keeping

The journal will maintain appropriately confidential records of:

allegations;
evidence and supporting materials;
correspondence;
preliminary assessments;
persons involved in the review;
referrals to institutions;
outcomes and reasons;
corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions;
dates and procedural actions.

Records will be retained in accordance with applicable confidentiality, data protection, legal, and document-retention requirements.

The journal may use anonymized information from cases to improve its policies, editorial procedures, training, and research integrity practices.

External Standards

The misconduct-handling practices of the Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics" are informed by:

COPE Core Practices;
relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance on suspected misconduct;
COPE guidance on responding to concerns about published research;
COPE guidance on cooperation between journals and research institutions;
COPE Retraction Guidelines;
COPE guidance on Expressions of Concern;
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;
the journal’s Authorship Principles;
the journal’s Conflicts of Interest Policy;
the journal’s Peer Review Policy;
the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy;
the journal’s Correction and Retraction Policy;
applicable national legislation and internationally recognized research integrity standards.

Policy Administration

This policy is effective from 1 August 2026 and will be reviewed periodically to ensure its continued alignment with applicable ethical standards and the editorial practices of the Uzbek Journal "Problems of Mechanics".

Allegations, supporting evidence, procedural complaints, or questions concerning this policy should be submitted to the Editorial Office at: