Complaints & Appeals

Publication Misconduct Policy & Appeals Procedure

NTU Journal of Pure Sciences (NTU-JPS) is committed to the highest standards of research integrity and ethical publishing. We adopt a zero-tolerance approach to any form of research or publication misconduct.

This policy outlines what constitutes misconduct, how the journal prevents and detects violations, and how allegations and appeals are handled. Our goal is to maintain the integrity of the scientific record by applying consistent, fair, and transparent procedures at every stage of the editorial process.

Types of Misconduct

NTU-JPS defines research and publication misconduct to include, but not be limited to, the following:

Plagiarism: Presenting the work (text, ideas, data, images, or graphics) of others as one’s own without proper attribution. This includes verbatim copying, paraphrasing without citation, and inappropriate self-plagiarism (reusing substantial portions of one’s own published work without disclosure).
Data Fabrication and Falsification: Making up data or results (fabrication) or manipulating research data, methods, images, or results to produce a desired outcome (falsification). Both practices fundamentally undermine the trustworthiness of scientific findings.
Image Manipulation: Altering images (e.g., figures, gels, charts, photographs) in a deceptive way. Acceptable adjustments (such as brightness or contrast changes) must not misrepresent or obscure original data and must be disclosed. Deliberate insertion, removal, or enhancement of image elements that mislead the reader is misconduct.
Authorship Abuse: Misrepresenting authorship of a work. This includes ‘guest’ or ‘honorary’ authorship (listing someone who made no significant contribution) and ‘ghost’ authorship (omitting someone who did contribute substantially). All listed authors must have participated in the work’s conception, execution, analysis, or interpretation and must approve the final version.
Peer Review Manipulation: Undermining the peer review process, for example by suggesting fabricated reviewers, providing false contact information for reviewers, or actions that bias fair review. Undisclosed conflicts of interest or coercive citation practices by reviewers or editors are also unacceptable.
Other Violations: Duplicate submission (submitting to multiple journals simultaneously), redundant publication without disclosure, undisclosed competing interests, or breaches of confidentiality.

Prevention and Screening

NTU-JPS employs proactive measures to detect and deter misconduct before publication:

Originality Check: Every submission is screened using recognized similarity-detection software (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts with substantial overlapping text are flagged for review.
Peer Review Scrutiny: Editors and reviewers are trained to identify signs of data or image tampering (e.g., inconsistencies in figures or statistical anomalies).
Data Validation: Authors are expected to provide complete and accurate data. If necessary, the editorial office may require submission of raw data, laboratory notes, or additional documentation to verify results.

Reporting Allegations

Any individual (authors, reviewers, readers, editors) who suspects a violation of this policy is encouraged to report it promptly.

How to Report: Allegations should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or the designated ethics contact: jps.complaints@ntu.edu.iq

The report should include:

The complainant’s name and affiliation (anonymous tips are considered but may limit follow-up).
A description of the concern.
Supporting evidence (references to the suspected publication, text comparisons, data discrepancies, or correspondence).

Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible.

Investigation Procedures

Upon receiving a credible allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated ethics committee member will conduct a review following these steps:

Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief examines evidence confidentially to gauge the merit of the complaint.
Notification and Response: The corresponding author(s) will be notified in writing of specific allegations and given an opportunity to respond fully with original data or methodology details.
Data Verification: If necessary, authors will be asked to provide raw data or original images. Independent experts may be consulted.
External Inquiry: For serious cases (e.g., suspected fabrication), the journal may refer the case to the authors’ institution(s) or funding agency.
Deliberation and Decision: Based on objective criteria, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board will determine if misconduct occurred.

Communication and Confidentiality

NTU-JPS handles all investigations with integrity. Identities of complainants, witnesses, and subjects are treated as confidential, shared only with those directly involved in the investigation.

With Authors: Accused authors are notified of the allegations and rights to respond. They receive a formal letter explaining findings and actions taken.
With Complainants: Complainants are informed that an investigation is underway and apprised of the final outcome (subject to privacy considerations).
Transparency: Final actions resulting from confirmed misconduct (e.g., retractions) will be published to alert the readership. Public statements are not made regarding pending

Sanctions and Corrective Actions

When misconduct is confirmed, corrective actions appropriate to the severity of the offense include:

Rejection: Immediate rejection of the manuscript (if under review).
Retraction: Publication of a formal retraction notice for published articles with proven unethical content.
Corrections: Issuance of Corrigenda or Errata for minor errors that do not invalidate findings.
Expression of Concern: Issued if an investigation is inconclusive but questions remain about a published work.
Notification of Institutions: Informing the authors' affiliated institutions or sponsors.
Submission Restrictions: Banning authors from submitting new manuscripts or serving as reviewers/editors for a defined period.

Appeals and Complaints Policy

NTU Journal of Pure Sciences maintains a clear process for appeals of editorial decisions and complaints about ethical misconduct.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Who: The corresponding author (with co-author agreement) regarding manuscripts that have undergone peer review.
Grounds: Must be based on substantive grounds (factual errors, procedural issues), not merely disagreement with judgment.
Process: Submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. Include the manuscript ID, a point-by-point rebuttal, and new evidence.
Outcome: The editor will confirm the decision or invite a revision/new review. The editor’s decision on an appeal is final.

Complaints Regarding Ethical Conduct

Scope: Allegations of plagiarism, fraud, undisclosed conflicts of interest, reviewer misconduct (bias/harassment), or editor misconduct.
Process: Submit in writing to the Editor-in-Chief (or to the publisher if the Editor-in-Chief is the subject).
Handling: Serious complaints may be reviewed by an independent Ethics Committee following COPE guidelines.

How to Submit a Complaint or Appeal

Submission Channel: Send an email to the Editor-in-Chief at jps@ntu.edu.iq or jps.complaints@ntu.edu.iq.

Subject Line Requirements:

For Appeals: “Appeal: [Manuscript ID]”
For Complaints: “Complaint: [Brief Topic]”

Process Overview:

Acknowledgement: We acknowledge receipt within 5 business days.
Review: A case manager (Editor-in-Chief or designee) is assigned. If a conflict of interest exists, an independent editor or publisher handles the case.
Resolution Timeframe: We aim to resolve cases within 4–8 weeks. Complex investigations may take longer, in which case parties will be updated periodically.
Confidentiality: All proceedings are strictly confidential.

Raising a genuine complaint or appeal will never result in retaliation; future submissions will be assessed on their merits alone.