The Jurnal JDR takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. This policy describes how the journal receives, investigates, and resolves such allegations, both before and after publication. JDR follows the COPE Flowcharts and the COPE Core Practices, and this policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics Statement.

1. What Constitutes Misconduct

For the purposes of this policy, research and publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication – making up data, results, or cases and reporting them as genuine;
• Falsification – manipulating research materials, data, images, or processes, or selectively omitting data, so that the research is not accurately represented;
• Plagiarism – using another person's ideas, text, data, or results without appropriate attribution, including self-plagiarism and text recycling without disclosure;
• Duplicate or redundant publication – publishing the same or substantially overlapping work in more than one journal without disclosure, or simultaneous submission;
• Authorship misconduct – gift, ghost, guest, or purchased authorship, or unresolved authorship disputes (see Authorship Criteria);
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect the interpretation of the work or the editorial process;
• Citation manipulation – excessive self-citation, coercive citation, or citation cartels intended to inflate metrics;
• Peer-review manipulation – suggesting fake reviewers, reviewing one's own work, or breaching the confidentiality of the review process;
• Unethical research – research involving human participants conducted without informed consent or without the required ethical approval, or breaching participants' privacy;
• Undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence;
• Paper mill involvement – submitting manuscripts that are produced, sold, or brokered by third parties.

Honest errors and differences of opinion in the design, conduct, interpretation, or judgement of research are not considered misconduct; these are addressed through the normal correction process.

2. Who May Raise a Concern

Allegations may be raised by anyone, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, institutions, or members of the public. Concerns may relate to manuscripts under consideration or to articles already published in JRBM.

3. How to Report a Concern

Concerns should be sent in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's Contact page. A report should include:

• the title, author(s), and DOI (or manuscript ID) of the work concerned;
• a clear description of the alleged misconduct; and
• supporting evidence, such as links to the original source, similarity reports, or a comparison of data or images.

JDR prefers named reports, but anonymous allegations will be considered when they are supported by specific and credible evidence. The identity of the person raising the concern will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to the authors without that person's consent.

4. Investigation Procedure

1. Acknowledgement – the Editorial Office acknowledges receipt of the concern.
2. Initial assessment – the Editor-in-Chief, together with the handling editor where appropriate, assesses whether the concern falls within this policy and whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed. Editors with a conflict of interest in the case are excluded from the process.
3. Evidence gathering – the editors review the manuscript and records, run similarity checks, and may consult reviewers, editorial board members, or independent experts.
4. Contacting the authors – the corresponding author (and, where appropriate, all authors) is informed of the concern in a neutral, non-accusatory manner and given a reasonable opportunity to respond and to provide original data or other evidence.
5. Escalation – if the authors do not respond satisfactorily, or if the matter cannot be resolved by the journal, JDR may refer the case to the authors' institution(s), employer, or funding body and request an investigation. The journal does not itself determine whether misconduct has occurred where this requires a formal institutional investigation.
6. Decision – the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the outcome, based on the evidence, the authors' response, and any institutional findings.

Throughout the process, the journal treats all parties fairly, keeps the matter confidential, and documents each step. The journal may place a manuscript on hold or publish an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing.

5. Possible Outcomes

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the case, outcomes may include:

• no further action, if the concern is not substantiated;
• an explanation or educational letter to the authors where the issue reflects a minor or unintentional lapse;
• a request for revision, or rejection of a manuscript under review;
• publication of a Correction or an Expression of Concern;
• Retraction of a published article, in accordance with the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy;
• notification of the authors' institution(s) or funding body; and
• in serious or repeated cases, a temporary or permanent ban on submissions from the authors concerned.

6. Misconduct by Reviewers or Editors

Allegations against a reviewer or editor (for example, breach of confidentiality, misuse of manuscript content, or an undisclosed conflict of interest) are handled by the Editor-in-Chief. Allegations involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to another senior member of the Editorial Board or to the publisher, the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Pasundan. Outcomes may include removal from the reviewer database or the Editorial Board.

7. Protection of All Parties

JDR is committed to protecting both those who raise concerns in good faith and those who are the subject of an allegation. Authors are presumed not to have engaged in misconduct unless this is established. Allegations that are found to be malicious or made in bad faith may themselves be treated as misconduct.