Research Misconduct Policy

Journal: Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE)
Policy Version: 1.0
Effective Date: September 2026

1. Purpose

Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and transparency of the scholarly record.

The journal does not tolerate research or publication misconduct and may investigate credible concerns arising before or after publication.

This policy describes how JMBE handles allegations or evidence relating to potential research misconduct and other serious breaches of research or publication integrity.

The journal may consider relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), applicable institutional procedures, and recognized disciplinary standards when assessing individual cases.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

• submitted manuscripts;

• manuscripts under peer review;

• accepted manuscripts;

• published articles;

• authors and co-authors;

• editors and Editorial Board members;

• reviewers;

• Guest Editors; and

• other individuals involved in the journal's publication process.

Research misconduct may occur during the conduct of research, manuscript preparation, peer review, or publication.

3. Types of Research and Publication Misconduct

Potential misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

3.1 Fabrication

Fabrication is the invention of data, observations, participants, experiments, results, or other research information and presenting them as genuine.

Examples may include:

• inventing experimental results;

• creating fictitious datasets;

• reporting experiments that were not conducted;

• inventing samples or measurements; and

• presenting fabricated computational or analytical results.

3.2 Falsification

Falsification is manipulating research materials, data, processes, images, or results in a way that misrepresents the underlying research.

Examples may include:

• altering measurements;

• selectively removing or changing observations without appropriate justification;

• manipulating experimental results;

• changing research records;

• inappropriate manipulation of images;

• manipulating computational outputs; and

• presenting altered results as authentic.

Legitimate data processing or image enhancement that does not misrepresent the underlying information may be acceptable where appropriately described.

3.3 Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, data, figures, images, methods, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate attribution.

This may include:

• direct copying;

• inappropriate paraphrasing;

• unattributed use of ideas;

• unauthorized reuse of figures or tables;

• translation plagiarism; and

• substantial reuse of previously published material without appropriate disclosure.

3.4 Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Misconduct may include:

• simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals;

• publication of substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure;

• inappropriate fragmentation of one study into multiple publications;

• substantial reuse of previously published material without justification; or

• publishing substantially the same findings in multiple venues without transparent explanation.

3.5 Authorship Misconduct

Potential authorship misconduct includes:

• fabricated or honorary authorship;

• ghost authorship;

• inappropriate exclusion of contributors who qualify for authorship;

• inappropriate addition or removal of authors;

• coerced authorship; and

• misrepresentation of author contributions.

Authorship disputes that do not involve broader misconduct may be referred to the relevant institution for resolution.

3.6 Inappropriate Image or Data Manipulation

The journal may investigate images, figures, tables, or datasets that appear to have been manipulated in a manner that materially misrepresents the research.

Editors may request original files or supporting records where necessary.

3.7 Peer-Review Manipulation

Potential peer-review manipulation includes:

• fabricated reviewer identities;

• use of false or misleading reviewer contact information;

• attempts to influence reviewer selection improperly;

• coordinated manipulation of peer review;

• undisclosed relationships between authors and suggested reviewers;

• review reports generated or submitted inappropriately on behalf of another person; and

• other attempts to interfere with independent peer review.

3.8 Citation Manipulation

Potential misconduct may include:

• coercive citation practices;

• unnecessary or excessive self-citation intended to influence metrics;

• coordinated citation manipulation;

• requesting citations without legitimate scholarly justification; and

• other deliberate attempts to artificially influence citation indicators.

3.9 Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a material conflict of interest may constitute a breach of publication ethics where the omission could reasonably affect the integrity or interpretation of the work or editorial process.

3.10 Inappropriate Use or Disclosure of AI

Concerns may arise where AI-assisted tools are used in ways that:

• fabricate or materially distort research content;

• generate false references or evidence;

• conceal substantive AI involvement where disclosure is required;

• compromise confidentiality;

• misrepresent authorship or contribution; or

• otherwise undermine the integrity of the research or editorial process.

Further requirements are set out in the journal's AI Policy.

4. Identification of Concerns

Potential research misconduct may be identified through:

• editorial screening;

• similarity checks;

• peer review;

• post-publication review;

• author reports;

• reviewer reports;

• editor concerns;

• institutional notifications;

• funder notifications;

• reader or third-party allegations; or

• other credible evidence.

JMBE takes credible allegations seriously regardless of when or how they are received.

5. Reporting a Concern

Concerns regarding potential research or publication misconduct should be submitted to:

Editorial Office
Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE)
Sunlit Grove Publishing
Email: contact@sunlitpub.com

Where possible, a report should include:

• the article or manuscript involved;

• a clear description of the concern;

• relevant evidence or supporting documentation;

• the identity of the person raising the concern, where they are willing to provide it; and

• any relevant institutional or publication information.

Anonymous concerns may be considered where sufficient information is provided to allow meaningful assessment.

6. Preliminary Assessment

When a concern is received, the Editorial Office or an appropriate editor conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern is:

• clearly unsupported;

• a minor issue that can be corrected;

• an authorship or institutional matter requiring referral;

• sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation; or

• an issue requiring immediate action to protect the integrity of the publication record.

The journal will avoid making premature conclusions about misconduct during the preliminary assessment.

Where appropriate, the manuscript or publication process may be temporarily paused.

7. Investigation

Where a preliminary assessment indicates a credible concern, JMBE may conduct a further investigation.

Depending on the nature of the case, the journal may request:

• explanations from the authors;

• original data;

• laboratory or research records;

• original image files;

• computational files or code;

• ethics approval documentation;

• authorship contribution information;

• declarations regarding conflicts of interest;

• clarification from reviewers or editors; or

• other information relevant to the concern.

Authors and other affected parties will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a substantive conclusion is reached, except where immediate protective action is required.

8. Institutional Involvement

JMBE recognizes that institutions and research organizations often have formal authority to investigate allegations concerning research conduct.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact:

• the author's institution;

• research integrity office;

• employer;

• funder;

• ethics committee;

• professional body; or

• other relevant organization.

JMBE may request that the institution conduct or confirm a formal investigation where the matter falls primarily within institutional authority.

The journal does not replace institutional research-misconduct procedures.

9. Editorial Decision-Making During an Investigation

During an investigation, the manuscript may be:

• held at its current editorial stage;

• returned to the authors for clarification;

• reassigned to another editor;

• removed from active peer review temporarily; or

• otherwise managed to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the process.

Where the concern involves an editor, reviewer, Guest Editor, or Editorial Board member, the individual concerned should not participate in decisions relating to the investigation.

10. Conflicts of Interest During Misconduct Investigations

Anyone involved in assessing or investigating an allegation must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where an Associate Editor has a conflict of interest, the matter should be reassigned to another qualified editor.

Where the Deputy Editor has a conflict of interest, the DE must not make the final decision concerning the matter.

The case should instead be assigned to an appropriate independent Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief.

Where the Editor-in-Chief also has a relevant conflict of interest, an independent and appropriately qualified Editorial Board member or other designated editor should oversee the case.

11. Possible Outcomes Before Publication

Where a concern is substantiated before publication, JMBE may:

• reject the manuscript;

• request correction or clarification;

• require changes to authorship or declarations where appropriate;

• suspend the manuscript pending institutional investigation;

• withdraw an acceptance decision; or

• take other proportionate action.

The action taken will depend on the nature and seriousness of the issue and the evidence available.

12. Possible Outcomes After Publication

Where a concern involves a published article, JMBE may take one or more of the following actions:

Correction

A correction may be issued where an error or limited problem can be corrected without undermining the overall reliability of the article.

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published where there are credible concerns but the investigation is ongoing or available evidence is insufficient to determine a final outcome.

Retraction

A published article may be retracted where the evidence indicates that its findings are unreliable or the publication involved serious ethical or research-integrity violations.

Other Notice

Where appropriate, the journal may publish another explanatory notice or update to maintain the accuracy and transparency of the published record.

Post-publication notices will normally remain linked to the affected article.

13. Corrections to the Research Record

The journal distinguishes between:

• honest errors;

• minor editorial mistakes;

• substantial but correctable errors; and

• issues that fundamentally undermine the reliability or integrity of the article.

Not every error constitutes research misconduct.

The response will be proportionate to the nature and significance of the issue.

Detailed procedures are provided in the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy.

14. Retraction Principles

Where retraction is considered necessary, JMBE aims to ensure that the published record remains transparent.

A retraction notice should:

• identify the affected article;

• explain the principal reason for retraction where appropriate;

• distinguish misconduct from honest error where possible;

• identify whether the retraction concerns part or all of the article; and

• remain permanently linked to the original publication.

The original article should not ordinarily be removed from the scholarly record, except where removal is legally required or necessary to protect individuals from serious harm.

15. Fabricated or Manipulated Data

Where there is credible evidence of fabricated or manipulated data, the journal may request the underlying research records.

If the concern cannot be resolved satisfactorily, JMBE may:

• suspend editorial consideration;

• reject the manuscript;

• refer the matter to the relevant institution;

• issue a post-publication notice; or

• take other appropriate action.

Where an institution confirms research misconduct, the journal will consider the findings when determining the appropriate editorial action.

16. Authorship Disputes

JMBE may assist with clarifying authorship information but does not adjudicate complex institutional disputes over ownership of authorship.

Where authors disagree regarding authorship, the journal may:

• request written agreement from all authors;

• require author contribution information;

• pause publication or review;

• refer the matter to the authors' institution; or

• take appropriate action once the dispute has been resolved.

The journal may not change authorship based solely on a request from one author without appropriate evidence or agreement.

17. Reviewer and Editorial Misconduct

Reviewers and editors are also subject to research and publication integrity standards.

Potential misconduct may include:

• disclosure of confidential information;

• fabricated review reports;

• inappropriate use of manuscript information;

• undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• manipulation of peer review;

• coercive citation practices;

• discriminatory or abusive conduct; and

• inappropriate use of AI tools with confidential materials.

Where concerns are substantiated, JMBE may remove the individual from the relevant editorial or reviewer role and may take additional action appropriate to the circumstances.

18. False or Malicious Allegations

JMBE encourages good-faith reporting of genuine concerns.

Knowingly submitting false, fabricated, or malicious allegations intended to harm authors, reviewers, editors, or the journal may itself constitute inappropriate conduct.

The journal may disregard unsupported allegations and may take appropriate action where abuse of the reporting process is established.

19. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Investigations will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible.

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

The journal will seek to protect personal and confidential information in accordance with applicable data-protection requirements.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required by law, institutional procedures, or other legitimate obligations.

20. Good-Faith Cooperation

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants are expected to cooperate honestly with reasonable requests for clarification or evidence.

Failure to provide relevant information may be considered when the journal assesses the available evidence, particularly where the requested information is reasonably necessary to resolve a serious integrity concern.

21. Editorial Independence

Research-misconduct investigations must remain independent of commercial considerations.

The journal will not dismiss or suppress a credible research-integrity concern because of:

• APC revenue;

• the commercial importance of a manuscript;

• author seniority;

• institutional prestige;

• expected citations;

• relationships with the publisher; or

• other commercial interests.

The Publisher may provide administrative, legal, or operational support but does not determine the scholarly merits of an individual case.

22. Appeals and Responses

Where appropriate, affected authors or other parties may provide additional evidence or request reconsideration of an editorial action.

Any appeal should identify:

• the specific decision being challenged;

• the factual or procedural basis for the challenge; and

• relevant supporting information.

Appeals will be considered by an appropriately independent editor where reasonably possible.

The journal may maintain or revise the original decision where the available evidence supports it.

23. Records of Investigations

JMBE maintains appropriate records of research-integrity investigations, including relevant:

• allegations;

• communications;

• evidence;

• editorial decisions;

• institutional correspondence; and

• post-publication actions.

Records are maintained in accordance with the journal's operational, legal, and data-management requirements.

24. Relationship to Other Policies

This policy should be read together with:

• Publication Ethics Policy

• Peer Review Policy

• Editorial Process

• Conflict of Interest Policy

• AI Policy

• Corrections and Retractions Policy

• Author Instructions

• Reviewer Guidelines

Where a specific policy provides more detailed requirements for a particular issue, that policy should be applied together with this Research Misconduct Policy.

25. Policy Review

JMBE will periodically review this policy to reflect developments in research integrity, publication ethics, peer review, and scholarly publishing.

The current version will be maintained on the journal website.

26. Contact

Concerns or questions regarding research and publication integrity may be directed to:

Editorial Office
Journal of Materials for the Built Environment (JMBE)
Sunlit Grove Publishing
Email: contact@sunlitpub.com