Research Misconduct and Whistleblower Policy

Commitment to Research Integrity

The International Review of FinTech Business and Management (IRFBM), published by the Academy of Decision and Data Sciences (ADDS), is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, publication ethics, and academic honesty.

The journal expects authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to conduct themselves responsibly throughout the submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication processes. Allegations of research misconduct are treated seriously and investigated fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Research Misconduct Policy

Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes any action that intentionally or negligently compromises the integrity, reliability, transparency, or credibility of scholarly research.

Examples of research misconduct include, but are not limited to:

  • Fabrication of data, results, interviews, surveys, experiments, or observations.

  • Falsification or manipulation of research data, statistical analyses, images, figures, tables, or research findings.

  • Plagiarism, including copying text, ideas, figures, or data without proper attribution.

  • Self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or salami publication.

  • Submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously without disclosure.

  • Manipulation of the peer review process, including the use of false reviewer identities or fabricated reviewer accounts.

  • Citation manipulation intended to artificially increase citation counts.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest that could influence the research or editorial process.

  • Unauthorized changes to authorship, including guest, gift, honorary, or ghost authorship.

  • Failure to obtain required ethical approval for research involving human participants or animals.

  • Misrepresentation of research methods, funding sources, affiliations, or institutional approvals.

  • Deliberate concealment or destruction of research records or supporting evidence.

Any practice that intentionally misleads readers, editors, reviewers, funding agencies, or the scholarly community may be considered research misconduct.

Reporting Allegations

Allegations of research misconduct may be submitted by:

  • Authors

  • Reviewers

  • Editors

  • Readers

  • Academic institutions

  • Funding organizations

  • Research collaborators

  • Members of the public

Reports should include sufficient evidence to allow the editorial office to conduct an informed preliminary assessment.

Anonymous reports may be considered where credible evidence is provided.

Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether:

  • The allegation falls within the journal's responsibilities.

  • Sufficient evidence exists to justify further investigation.

  • Immediate action is required to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Where necessary, publication of a manuscript may be suspended until the investigation has been completed.

Investigation Procedure

Where further investigation is warranted, the journal may:

  • Request explanations from the corresponding author.

  • Seek additional information from co-authors.

  • Examine supporting documentation and research data.

  • Consult independent subject experts.

  • Seek advice from the Editorial Board.

  • Contact the relevant institution, employer, ethics committee, or funding organization where appropriate.

Investigations will be conducted objectively, confidentially, and without prejudice.

All parties involved will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final editorial decision is reached.

Editorial Actions

Depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, IRFBM may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Request clarification or correction.

  • Require revision of the manuscript.

  • Reject the manuscript.

  • Withdraw an accepted manuscript.

  • Publish a correction.

  • Publish an expression of concern.

  • Retract the published article.

  • Remove content where legally required.

  • Notify the author's institution or employer.

  • Notify funding agencies or research sponsors.

  • Notify relevant indexing and abstracting services.

  • Restrict future submissions from individuals responsible for serious misconduct.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the evidence and severity of the misconduct.

Post-Publication Misconduct

Research misconduct may be identified after publication.

Where credible evidence emerges following publication, IRFBM may initiate a post-publication investigation.

If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may publish:

  • A correction.

  • An expression of concern.

  • A retraction.

  • Another appropriate editorial notice.

Any post-publication notice will remain permanently linked to the original article to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Whistleblower Policy

Encouraging Good-Faith Reporting

IRFBM encourages authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, and members of the academic community to report suspected breaches of publication ethics or research integrity.

Good-faith reporting contributes to maintaining confidence in scholarly publishing and helps protect the accuracy of the scientific record.

Reports may relate to:

  • Plagiarism.

  • Fabricated or falsified data.

  • Duplicate publication.

  • Authorship disputes.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  • Ethical approval concerns.

  • Peer review manipulation.

  • Citation manipulation.

  • Image manipulation.

  • Data availability concerns.

  • Research fraud.

  • Any other suspected publication misconduct.

Confidentiality

All allegations are handled confidentially.

The identity of whistleblowers will be protected to the fullest extent reasonably possible.

Information relating to an investigation will be shared only with individuals directly involved in evaluating the allegation or where disclosure is required by law or institutional procedures.

Protection of Whistleblowers

IRFBM prohibits retaliation against any individual who reports suspected misconduct honestly and in good faith.

A whistleblower will not be disadvantaged solely because an allegation is ultimately not substantiated, provided the report was made responsibly and without malicious intent.

Knowingly false or malicious allegations may themselves constitute misconduct.

Investigation of Reports

Every credible report will receive appropriate consideration.

Depending on the circumstances, investigations may involve:

  • The Editor-in-Chief.

  • Associate Editors.

  • Members of the Editorial Board.

  • Independent external experts.

  • The relevant institution or employer.

  • Research ethics committees.

  • Funding agencies.

The journal will seek to conduct investigations promptly while ensuring fairness to all parties.

Outcomes

Following investigation, the journal may conclude that:

  • No misconduct occurred.

  • Minor corrections are required.

  • Editorial clarification is required.

  • A correction should be published.

  • An expression of concern should be issued.

  • The manuscript should be rejected.

  • The article should be retracted.

  • Institutional authorities should be informed.

  • Additional editorial actions are appropriate.

Where appropriate, affected parties will be informed of the outcome.

Responsibilities

Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • Conduct research honestly and ethically.

  • Maintain accurate research records.

  • Cooperate fully during investigations.

  • Correct significant errors identified after publication.

  • Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Reviewers

Reviewers should:

  • Report suspected ethical concerns confidentially.

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the investigation.

  • Avoid making unsupported allegations.

  • Declare conflicts of interest.

Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • Managing investigations fairly and impartially.

  • Protecting confidential information.

  • Avoiding conflicts of interest.

  • Applying publication ethics consistently.

  • Making evidence-based editorial decisions.

Contact

Concerns relating to research misconduct, publication ethics, or whistleblower reports may be submitted to:

International Review of FinTech Business and Management (IRFBM)
Academy of Decision and Data Sciences (ADDS)
Email: editor.irfbm@addsacademy.com

All reports should include sufficient information and supporting evidence to enable an appropriate assessment.

Policy Review

This policy is reviewed periodically to ensure continued alignment with international publication ethics, evolving scholarly publishing standards, and best practices for research integrity. Any revisions will be published on the journal website and will apply to future submissions unless otherwise stated.