The International Journal of Eco-Innovation in Science and Engineering (IJEISE) is steadfast in its commitment to preserving the integrity of the scientific record. We treat all allegations of academic and publishing misconduct with the utmost seriousness. In handling such matters, the editorial board strictly adheres to the core practices and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definitions of Scientific Misconduct

Scientific and publishing misconduct encompasses, but is not limited to, the following unethical practices:

• Data Fabrication and Falsification: Inventing data sets, or manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or graphs to misrepresent the results of an engineering or scientific study.
• Plagiarism: Presenting the data, text, theories, or ideas of another researcher as one's own without appropriate citation and attribution. This includes the uncredited use of translated materials.
• Redundant or Duplicate Publication: Submitting or publishing the same manuscript, or substantially similar research, in multiple journals simultaneously or consecutively without proper disclosure.
• Authorship Manipulation: Engaging in ghost, guest, or gift authorship, or altering the author list without the explicit consent of all contributors.
• Ethical Violations: Failing to adhere to standard ethical protocols in research, including breaches of confidentiality during the peer-review process or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

2. Reporting Allegations

IJEISE encourages peer reviewers, authors, and readers to act as stewards of academic integrity.

• Anyone who suspects misconduct in a submitted manuscript or a published article should report their concerns directly to the Editor-in-Chief via the journal's official email or contact portal.
• Whistleblowers must provide specific, evidence-based concerns (e.g., highlighting overlapping texts, pointing out identical data plots, or providing relevant DOIs).
• IJEISE guarantees that all allegations will be treated confidentially to protect the identities of both the whistleblower and the accused during the initial phases of the investigation.

3. Investigation Procedure

The editorial board will not reject an allegation without a preliminary review, nor will they accept it as fact without conducting a thorough and impartial investigation.

• Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief will review the evidence provided. If the allegation lacks specific evidence or appears retaliatory, it will be dismissed. If there is a plausible basis for misconduct, the investigation proceeds.
• Author Engagement: The corresponding author will be contacted confidentially, presented with the evidence, and given a strict timeframe to provide a formal explanation and any supporting raw data.
• Institutional Involvement: If the authors fail to respond, or if their explanation is unsatisfactory and the evidence of severe misconduct is compelling, IJEISE will escalate the matter by contacting the authors' affiliated academic institutions, funding bodies, or relevant regulatory authorities to request an independent institutional investigation.

4. Resolution and Sanctions

If scientific misconduct is unequivocally confirmed, IJEISE reserves the right to impose one or more of the following sanctions, proportionate to the severity of the offense:

• Rejection of the Manuscript: Immediate rejection of the manuscript under review.
• Publication of a Notice: Issuance of an Erratum, Corrigendum, or Expression of Concern for minor infractions or honest errors that were mishandled.
• Retraction: Formal retraction of a published article from the journal’s database, accompanied by a public retraction notice detailing the misconduct, in accordance with the Retraction Policy.
• Embargo/Ban: A temporary or permanent ban on future submissions to IJEISE from the offending authors.

5. Appeals

Authors possess the right to appeal editorial decisions related to misconduct. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, supported by robust, new evidence that refutes the initial findings of the investigation. The editorial board's decision upon reviewing the appeal will be final.