Allegations of Misconduct Policy

Substantiated reports of possible misconduct are examined both before and after publication. This policy establishes procedures for preserving and assessing evidence, obtaining explanations, cooperating with research institutions and taking proportionate editorial measures to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

01. Purpose and limits of authority

This policy applies to all types of materials published in Technosphere Safety, including special issues, and covers potential misconduct by authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, staff, and the journal's founder and publisher — the Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers National Research University (hereinafter the Institute). An investigation may be initiated at any stage of manuscript consideration or after publication.

The editorial office is responsible for determining whether the material and its assessment process can be trusted and for making decisions concerning manuscripts or published articles. A research institution investigates the conduct of research, the actions of its employees and matters of disciplinary responsibility. The editorial office does not replace the institution's authority; however, the presence or absence of institutional findings does not remove the journal's obligation to protect the integrity of its publications.

An allegation of misconduct is grounds for assessment, not proof of wrongdoing. Honest error, scientific disagreement, insufficient support for a conclusion and deliberate manipulation are distinguished. Establishing intent is not necessary to correct an unreliable publication; a public allegation of misconduct requires an independent evidentiary basis.

02. Types of concerns considered

  • Suspected fabrication or falsification of data, results, images, calculations or descriptions of methods, or substantial unjustified concealment of results.
  • Plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication, unauthorised use of others' materials or misrepresentation of authorship and contributions.
  • Fabricated reviews, reviewer identities or contact details, collusion, citation manipulation and other interference with independent assessment.
  • False information concerning ethics approval, consent, permissions, funding or significant interests, and violations of research ethics requirements.
  • Use of artificial intelligence tools in violation of the applicable policy, including the generation of fabricated data or references presented as genuine.
  • Abuse of editorial authority, disclosure or misappropriation of confidential materials, pressure and obstruction of investigations, or indications of systematic publication manipulation.

This list is not exhaustive. Criteria concerning authorship, textual appropriation, permissible use of AI, competing interests and research ethics are defined in the relevant separate policies. Service-related complaints and appeals against scientific assessment that do not indicate misconduct are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

03. Reporting and initial assessment

Reports may be submitted through OJS or to technosphere@tiiame.uz. An investigation requires the manuscript identifier or title, article DOI or link, a description of the specific concern and available supporting evidence, such as passages for comparison, an original source or an inconsistency in a table or image. The reporter is not required to conduct a complete investigation independently or prove intent.

Substantive anonymous reports and credible information identified by the editorial office in public discussions are also assessed. The reporting channel, the reporter's reputation or disagreements with an author do not replace examination of the facts. The absence of contact information may limit clarification but does not prevent investigation of specific and significant indications.

Registration, acknowledgement, target timelines for initial assessment and protection of reporters are governed by the Complaints and Appeals Policy. There is no deadline for reporting threats to publication integrity. The initial stage establishes the verifiability and significance of the concern, applicable rules and the need for urgent protective measures; general dissatisfaction without specific details requires clarification.

04. Independent management of investigations

A competent editor without conflicts of interest manages the case. If the editor's own decision or conduct is under examination, they may provide explanations but must not direct the investigation or approve its outcome. Procedures for recusal and the appointment of another editor, including an external editor where necessary, are governed by the editorial governance and conflicts of interest policies.

Complex cases may involve independent specialists in the research subject, statistics, images or methods, as well as a panel constituted under the Editorial Governance and Independence Policy. Specialists and panel members assess the matters assigned to them; the final publication decision is made by an authorised independent editor.

Where the Editor-in-Chief, publisher or Institute leadership is implicated, the independent route established in the Complaints and Appeals Policy applies, including contact through the Institute's official channels at https://tiiame.uz/. Institutional dependence is addressed through external review; a person implicated in an allegation does not select those investigating their own conduct.

05. Preservation and assessment of evidence

The original report, manuscript or article version under consideration, files, revision history, reviews, correspondence and related editorial records are preserved. The source and date of each item received are recorded; working copies and conclusions are kept separate from originals. Access is restricted to participants in the investigation on a need-to-know basis.

Where reasonably necessary, original data, measurement logs, original images, calculation files, code, protocols, permissions or evidence of contributions are requested. For technosphere safety research, these may include raw readings from industrial hazard sensors, protective equipment test logs, emissions monitoring data, instrument calibration records and validation of accident-process models. Requests must explain the relevance of the materials to a specific concern and must not cover unnecessary personal or commercially sensitive information.

Restricted data are transferred through an agreed secure channel or examined through an authorised institution; public release of confidential source materials is not required. Inability to provide older data is evaluated in light of the retention requirements applicable at the time, circumstances of loss and alternative evidence. It does not automatically establish falsification, but it may leave important findings unverifiable.

Text similarity scores, signals from AI detectors and automated image analysis are grounds for substantive examination, not independent proof. Findings are compared with original materials, explanations and competent expert assessment. Rules are evaluated according to their applicability at the time of the relevant conduct; new formal requirements are not imposed retrospectively.

06. Obtaining and assessing explanations

The person concerned receives a neutral description of the specific concerns, relevant materials and explanations requested, without premature accusation. For an article, the corresponding author is usually contacted first; other co-authors may be contacted where necessary and their separate responses obtained. One author's position is not automatically treated as representing all authors.

The response deadline and the possibility of a justified extension are governed by the Complaints and Appeals Policy. If no response is received, the editorial office sends a reminder, checks available current contact details and, where necessary, contacts co-authors or the research institution. Silence does not constitute an admission of guilt; decisions are based on available evidence and an assessment of the material's reliability.

Significant new information that could lead to an adverse finding is made available to the person concerned for comment, to the extent compatible with protecting the reporter and third parties. Where there is a specific risk of evidence destruction or pressure, initial notification may be postponed to a limited extent: the reason is recorded, information is referred to an independent competent authority, and the right to respond is ensured as soon as the risk permits.

07. Cooperation with research institutions

Where serious concerns are reasonably substantiated, explanations are unsatisfactory or an investigation beyond the editorial office's capabilities is required, a reasoned request is sent to the person responsible for research integrity at the institution where the research was conducted or to another competent authority. Where multiple institutions are involved, cooperation is coordinated. If the internal recipient has an interest in the outcome, independent investigation is requested.

The request distinguishes established facts from questions requiring investigation. Only necessary materials are shared, and the journal requests acknowledgement, contact details of the responsible person, expected timelines and findings relevant to the reliability or attribution of the publication. Authors are normally informed of the referral; restrictions on notification are permitted in the circumstances described in Section 6.

If the institution does not respond, cannot conduct an independent investigation or its conclusions do not explain significant inconsistencies, the editorial office requests clarification, continues evaluating the available evidence and, where necessary, involves external specialists or contacts another competent authority. The absence of an institutional response or agreement does not oblige the editorial office to leave demonstrably unreliable material unchanged.

Where the facts concern publications in other journals, limited confidential communication with their responsible editors may be appropriate to examine a shared problem. Verifiable information is shared rather than lists of alleged "offenders"; the scope and purpose of the exchange are documented with due regard for data protection. The mere involvement of the same author or institution does not establish misconduct in other works.

08. Editorial actions and grounds for decisions

  • The concern has been satisfactorily explained: the case is closed with the reasons documented; manuscript consideration continues under the usual criteria. Any previously published warning is updated where necessary.
  • A limited error is identified while the work remains reliable: correction is requested before publication; after publication, a correction notice linked to the article is issued.
  • A serious concern remains unresolved: manuscript consideration or publication may be suspended; for a published article, an expression of concern may be considered where sufficient grounds exist, followed by review of its status.
  • Reliability has been seriously compromised or a serious breach of publication requirements has been established: the manuscript may be rejected or the published article retracted under the applicable policy, with specific justification.
  • The violation involves an editor, reviewer or staff member: the person is removed from the affected process, the need for independent reassessment of relevant works is evaluated, and the question of their continued authority is referred under the governance rules.

Measures are proportionate to the established impact and scale of the problem. Retraction is not used as a punishment and is not imposed solely because of a complaint, an author's silence or the absence of a particular document. Where the reliability of findings has been seriously compromised, an honest error does not rule out retraction. Each affected item is assessed individually, including in cases of suspected systematic manipulation.

Rules for selecting and issuing corrections, expressions of concern and retractions are set out in the Corrections, Retractions and Post-publication Updates Policy. A public notice describes the confirmed problem and does not attribute equal blame to all co-authors without justification. Reliable findings about a publication's status may require action before an institutional investigation is completed; authors' consent is not a mandatory condition for a justified editorial decision.

09. Continuing investigations and communication

Rejection of a manuscript, its withdrawal by the author or withdrawal of a complaint by the reporter does not automatically terminate an investigation into a significant risk. Where the work has already been published elsewhere, the editorial office may forward relevant information to the responsible editor under Section 7. The process must not be used to unjustifiably retain a manuscript or exert pressure on an author.

In complex cases, the duration depends on the scope of the investigation and the need for expert and institutional responses. Acknowledgement, extension notices and the frequency of status updates follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy; awaiting an external investigation does not mean communication ceases. The responsible editor documents subsequent actions and regularly assesses the need for an interim notice to readers.

The reporter and affected participants are informed of the outcome and principal reasons to the extent permitted. The availability of a public correction does not mean that all investigation materials are publicly accessible. Details concerning personal, disciplinary and other confidential matters are shared only with recipients who have the relevant authority.

10. Documentation, reconsideration and implementation

The final record contains the questions examined, evidence considered, responses, disclosed interests, appointments and recusals, reasons for decisions and measures assigned. Where a final conclusion cannot be reached, the record specifies what remains unresolved and when the matter will be reconsidered. Preservation of materials and processing of personal data are governed by the Privacy Policy.

A decision or investigation procedure may be appealed under the Complaints and Appeals Policy; the appeal is assessed by a person who did not participate in the contested decision. Significant new information may justify reopening a case. Reconsideration does not automatically justify delaying a necessary notice to readers concerning the reliability of the work.

Protection of good-faith reporters and prohibition of retaliation remain in force regardless of whether their concerns are substantiated. The editorial office uses identified shortcomings to improve procedures and train participants without disclosing unnecessary personal information.

This policy applies following approval and official publication, with actual dates of actions recorded. It may be used to examine previously published materials, but it does not create a false history of earlier investigations or silently alter the published scholarly record.

Methodological references

This policy has been developed with reference to the DOAJ principles of transparency and COPE recommendations on investigating possible misconduct, cooperating with research institutions and correcting publications. It establishes the journal's procedures and does not replace an institutional investigation.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-3981 (Online)