Research misconduct refers to serious violations of research integrity or publication ethics that compromise the reliability, originality, or ethical acceptability of scholarly work. Allegations may concern submitted manuscripts, published articles, research data, laboratory or field investigations, chemistry education research, experimental procedures, or the reporting of research outcomes.

Concerns that may be assessed under this policy include, but are not limited to, the following:

Other concerns may include manipulated images, fraudulent peer review, false declarations, inappropriate data reuse, or deliberate misrepresentation of research findings. Honest errors and legitimate differences in interpretation are not automatically considered research misconduct.

Concerns may be reported to the JREC editorial office by authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, institutions, or other individuals with relevant information.

Reports should provide as much specific information as reasonably available, including:

• The title, DOI, or identifying details of the manuscript or article, where available.
• A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
• Relevant supporting evidence, documents, data, or links.
• Contact details for follow-up, where the reporter is willing to provide them.

Reports should be submitted through JREC's official editorial contact channels. Anonymous reports may also be assessed when sufficient information is provided to evaluate the concern.

JREC follows a proportionate process to evaluate allegations and determine appropriate action.

Depending on the nature, seriousness, and evidential basis of the concern, JREC may take one or more of the following actions:

• Request further information, documentation, or clarification.
• Require corrections to a manuscript before further consideration.
• Reject a manuscript when serious concerns are substantiated or publication standards are not met.
• Publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when justified for a published article.
• Notify relevant institutions or research integrity authorities where appropriate.
• Take additional action consistent with the journal's policies and applicable ethical standards.

Editorial action should be proportionate to the findings. A retraction or other public notice will be considered when necessary to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

JREC seeks to protect the confidentiality of allegations and assessments to the extent reasonably possible. Individuals involved should be treated fairly, and conclusions should not be based solely on unverified accusations.

The journal will take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary disclosure of personal or confidential information and will consider the rights of authors, complainants, research participants, and affected communities.

Where appropriate, JREC may request independent advice or institutional assistance to support an impartial assessment.

Authors and their affiliated institutions are expected to cooperate reasonably with inquiries concerning the integrity of research submitted to or published in JREC. Institutions may be better placed to investigate access to original data, research records, laboratory or field procedures, and other institutional matters.

JREC may refer serious or unresolved allegations to the relevant institution or competent authority. The journal will consider the available findings when deciding whether editorial action is necessary.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision relating to a misconduct allegation may submit a reasoned response with relevant supporting evidence to the editorial office. Appeals will be considered by an appropriate editor or designated representative, where feasible independently of the original decision-maker.

An appeal does not automatically suspend an editorial action or guarantee a different outcome.

JREC encourages alignment with recognized publication ethics guidance, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This guidance may inform the journal's assessment of allegations and decisions about corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions.