Allegations of Misconduct Policy

 
 
Editorial Integrity

Allegations of Misconduct Policy

Asia Book Registry is committed to the highest standards of scholarly integrity. This policy outlines how allegations of misconduct are received, investigated, and resolved — fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with COPE guidelines.

▶ COPE Guidelines ▶ ICMJE Recommendations ▶ Declaration of Helsinki ▶ No Retaliation
 

Core Principle: All allegations are handled with fairness, confidentiality, and proportionality. Parties who report misconduct in good faith are protected from retaliation. Parties accused of misconduct are presumed innocent until findings are established through due process.

Section 1

Scope & Guiding Principles

This policy applies to all parties who interact with Asia Book Registry: submitting publishers, authors, institutions, and third parties. Allegations may concern submissions, indexed records, metadata claims, peer review attestations, or interactions with ABR staff. ABR handles all allegations in accordance with:

COPE Guidelines ICMJE Recommendations Declaration of Helsinki WAME Principles Swiss nDSG
Principle What It Means in Practice
Presumption of Good Faith All parties are treated fairly until evidence supports a finding. Malicious allegations are themselves subject to sanction.
Confidentiality Identity of the reporting party and the accused is protected throughout, except where disclosure is required by law or necessary to resolve the case.
Proportionality Outcomes are proportionate to the nature and severity of misconduct established by evidence, following COPE decision trees.
Timeliness ABR targets initial acknowledgment within 5 working days and a preliminary assessment within 20 working days of receipt.
No Retaliation Reporting parties acting in good faith are protected from retaliation. Any confirmed retaliation is treated as a separate act of misconduct.
Section 2

Types of Misconduct Covered

ABR recognizes the following categories of misconduct. Multiple categories may apply to a single case.

 
Metadata Misrepresentation

Submitting false, fabricated, or materially inaccurate metadata (title, authorship, ISBN, publication date, publisher identity, peer review attestation) to obtain or maintain indexing in ABR.
 
Plagiarism & Copyright Infringement

Presenting another's work, ideas, or expression as one's own without proper attribution; or submitting a book that reproduces copyrighted content in violation of applicable law, detected via iThenticate or credible third-party report.
 
Authorship Misconduct

Ghost authorship (listing individuals who did not contribute), gift authorship (including individuals solely for prestige), or omitting genuine contributors. Authorship order disputes are included when supported by evidence.
 
Duplicate & Salami Submission

Submitting the same book or substantially overlapping content more than once without disclosure; or fragmenting a single scholarly work into multiple submissions to artificially inflate the indexed record count.
 
Research Ethics Violations

Indexed books reporting human or animal research conducted without ethical approval (KEPK or equivalent IRB), or fabricating/falsifying research data underlying the book's scholarly claims (per Declaration of Helsinki).
 
Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose financial, personal, academic, or institutional conflicts of interest during submission or during any editorial interaction with ABR, as defined in ABR's Conflict of Interest Policy.
 
Predatory / Fraudulent Publishing

Submitting books from publishers using deceptive practices: false peer review claims, fake ISBNs, non-existent editorial boards, or misleading affiliation with reputable organizations. Evaluated using Think.Check.Submit criteria.
 
Abuse of ABR Process

Filing vexatious or bad-faith allegations; harassment or intimidation of ABR staff; deliberate circumvention of the appeals process; or manipulation of the submission system.
Section 3

Who Can Submit an Allegation

Allegations may be submitted by any individual or organization with credible knowledge of potential misconduct. ABR encourages responsible reporting and does not require the reporting party to have a direct stake in the outcome.

Reporting Party Typical Concern
Authors / Co-authors Ghost or gift authorship; omission from author list; stolen intellectual contribution
Publishers / Editors Duplicate submission across registries; misuse of publisher identity or ISBN
Academic Institutions Research misconduct linked to affiliated authors; unauthorized use of institutional affiliation
Readers / Researchers Plagiarism detected in indexed content; fabricated data or citations in a published book
Other Registries / Databases Cross-registry duplicate records; inconsistent metadata across indexing platforms
ABR Staff / Editors Any misconduct discovered during editorial review, post-publication monitoring, or routine audit
Anonymous Third Parties Anonymous allegations are accepted but weighted according to the quality and verifiability of evidence provided
Section 4

How to Submit an Allegation

Submit Allegations By Email

Email: contact@explorerfrontier.com

Subject line: ABR Misconduct — [ISBN or Record Number]

If the allegation does not concern a specific indexed record, use: ABR Misconduct — General

Your allegation should include the following information where available:

Your identity Full name, institutional affiliation (if any), and contact email. Anonymous submissions are accepted but may limit the investigation.
Record details ISBN, book title, authors, publisher, and year of publication of the book in question.
Nature of allegation Clear description of the alleged misconduct, referencing the category (Section 2) where possible.
Supporting evidence Documents, screenshots, iThenticate/similarity reports, URLs, correspondence, or other verifiable material. Unsubstantiated allegations may not be investigated.
Prior actions taken State whether the allegation has been reported to another institution, publisher, registry, or authority, and the outcome if known.
Conflict of interest Disclose any personal, financial, or professional relationship with the accused party that could affect impartiality.
Section 5

Investigation Process

ABR follows a structured, evidence-based investigation procedure consistent with COPE flowcharts for suspected misconduct in published material.

Step Stage Actions Target Timeline
1 Acknowledgment ABR acknowledges receipt and assigns a case reference number. The reporting party is informed their identity will be kept confidential. Within 5 working days
2 Preliminary Assessment The Editor-in-Chief reviews the allegation for completeness and plausibility. Vexatious, clearly unfounded, or duplicate allegations are dismissed at this stage with written notice. Within 20 working days
3 Notification of Accused If the allegation passes preliminary assessment, the accused party is notified in writing (without revealing the reporter's identity) and given 20 working days to provide a written response and evidence. After Step 2
4 Evidence Evaluation ABR reviews all submitted evidence, may request additional documentation, and may consult the relevant institution's research integrity office or an independent subject-area expert. Case-dependent
5 Decision ABR issues a written decision stating findings and outcome (see Section 6). Both parties are notified simultaneously. Board members with conflicts of interest are recused. Within 60 working days (complex cases may take longer)
6 Post-Decision Record A confidential record of all proceedings is retained for a minimum of 10 years. Public-facing notices (Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions) are published where required. Ongoing
⚠︎ Interim Measures During Investigation

While an investigation is ongoing, ABR may attach an Expression of Concern notice to the affected record or temporarily suspend the submitting publisher's account. These are precautionary, not punitive, measures and do not imply a finding of misconduct.

Section 6

Outcomes & Sanctions

Outcomes are proportionate to the severity and nature of the misconduct established by evidence. More than one outcome may apply to a single case.

Outcome Description Severity
No Action / Case Closed Allegation not substantiated; record and account status unchanged. Both parties notified. N/A
Metadata Correction Inaccurate metadata corrected with a dated correction notice appended per the Corrections & Retraction Policy. Minor
Formal Warning Written warning issued and recorded internally. A second formal warning within 24 months triggers suspension. Moderate
Expression of Concern Public notice attached to the indexed record indicating ongoing concerns about metadata or scholarly integrity. Moderate
Publisher Account Suspension Temporary suspension of the publisher's ability to submit new books, pending resolution or a review period of up to 12 months. Serious
Retraction of Record Record retracted with a public retraction notice. The bibliographic shell and notice remain permanently visible per the permanent record principle. Severe
Permanent Publisher Ban Publisher permanently removed from ABR's approved submitter list. Reserved for repeated or egregious misconduct such as systematic ISBN fraud or serial predatory practices. Most Severe
Referral to External Bodies ABR may notify the publisher's institutional ethics committee, national research integrity authority, or relevant professional societies. ABR cooperates fully with any resulting external investigation. Severe
Section 7

AI-Generated Content & Misconduct

ABR recognizes that AI-generated content presents evolving challenges for scholarly integrity. The following specific provisions apply:

Undisclosed AI Authorship

Submitting a book substantially authored by an AI tool without disclosure in the metadata constitutes metadata misrepresentation. ABR requires disclosure of AI content generation tools, consistent with STM Association and COPE emerging standards.
AI as Verification Tool

ABR may use AI-assisted tools (iThenticate, Grammarly Premium) during editorial screening. Results inform, but do not automatically determine, investigation outcomes.
AI Does Not Qualify as an Author

In accordance with ICMJE, COPE, and emerging consensus, AI systems cannot be listed as named authors in ABR records. Any submission listing an AI tool as an author will be corrected and treated as an authorship misconduct case under Section 2.
Section 8

Confidentiality & Whistleblower Protection

Reporting Party
  • Identity kept strictly confidential throughout
  • Not disclosed to the accused without explicit consent
  • Disclosed only if required by law (Swiss nDSG, court order)
  • Protected against retaliation from ABR or accused parties
  • May be contacted for clarification; participation is voluntary
Accused Party
  • Informed of the allegation in a timely, fair manner
  • Given full opportunity to respond and provide evidence
  • Name not publicly disclosed unless misconduct is confirmed and a public notice is required
  • Right to appeal any decision (see Section 9)
  • Presumed innocent until findings are established
Data Retention

All personal data collected during proceedings is processed in accordance with Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (nDSG), EU GDPR (for EU data subjects), and Indonesian UU PDP No. 27/2022 (for Indonesian parties). Investigation records are retained for a minimum of 10 years and then securely deleted unless retention is required by law.

Section 9

Appeals

Either the reporting party or the accused party may appeal a final decision within 30 calendar days of receiving the written decision notice.

Submit appeal to contact@explorerfrontier.com
Subject line ABR Appeal — Misconduct — [Case Reference Number]
Deadline 30 calendar days from date of written decision notice
Grounds for appeal New material evidence not available during investigation; procedural error that materially affected the outcome; disproportionate sanction relative to established facts
Appeals panel Three editorial board members not involved in the original decision; an independent external expert may be invited at the panel's discretion
Final decision The appeal panel's decision is final. ABR does not offer further internal review after the appeal stage. External legal recourse remains available per applicable Swiss law.
Section 10

Cooperation with External Institutions

Where appropriate, ABR will cooperate with the following external bodies to ensure thorough and coordinated resolution:

COPE ABR follows COPE flowcharts and may seek COPE guidance on complex cases as a member-aligned registry.
Publisher's Institution / IRB For research misconduct cases, ABR notifies the author's or publisher's affiliated institution and coordinates with its research integrity office.
International ISBN Agency For suspected ISBN fraud, ABR reports to the International ISBN Agency and relevant national agency (e.g., Perpustakaan Nasional RI).
Other Registries & Databases ABR may notify DOAB, WorldCat, or other indexing services of confirmed misconduct findings affecting shared records.
Legal Authorities ABR cooperates fully with lawful requests from Swiss authorities and, where applicable, international law enforcement in cases involving criminal conduct (fraud, large-scale copyright infringement).
Section 11

Policy Review & Contact

Policy Effective Date 2024
Review Frequency Annual review by the ABR Editorial Board; updated in response to changes in COPE guidelines or applicable law
Policy Owner Editor-in-Chief, Asia Book Registry / Explorer Frontier
Governing Framework COPE Guidelines, ICMJE Recommendations, Declaration of Helsinki, Swiss nDSG, EU GDPR, UU PDP No. 27/2022
Contact contact@explorerfrontier.com — Explorer Frontier, Rainstrasse 20, 8134 Adliswil, Zurich, Switzerland