PKM: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat is committed to maintaining research integrity, publication ethics, and an accurate scholarly record. Allegations concerning submitted manuscripts or published articles will be handled fairly, objectively, confidentially, and on the basis of evidence, with reference to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Given the nature of community service and engagement, the journal recognizes the importance of accurate reporting of community needs, program implementation, participant involvement, evaluation results, and outcomes. An allegation does not, in itself, establish misconduct. The parties concerned will be given an opportunity to provide explanations and supporting evidence before an editorial decision is reached.

1. Scope

This policy covers allegations of misconduct or practices that may compromise the integrity, reliability, or ethical acceptability of manuscripts submitted to or published in PKM: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat.

The scope includes, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication of data or activities: Inventing data, participant responses, community service activities, evaluation results, or other evidence that was not actually obtained or conducted.

• Falsification of data or findings: Manipulating, altering, or selectively reporting data, implementation records, photographs, evaluation results, or other materials in a manner that misrepresents the actual activities or outcomes.

• Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, data, images, methods, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

• Duplicate or redundant publication: Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure or justification.

• Authorship manipulation: Misrepresenting contributions, including gift authorship, ghost authorship, unauthorized authorship, or false statements about individual contributions.

• Peer-review manipulation: Interfering with the integrity of the peer-review process, including providing false reviewer identities or attempting to influence editorial decisions improperly.

• Ethical violations involving participants or communities: Failing to obtain required consent, disregarding applicable ethical requirements, misusing personal or sensitive information, or reporting participant involvement in ways that violate privacy or misrepresent the actual circumstances.

• Misrepresentation of community partnerships: Claiming that a community, institution, organization, or partner participated in or endorsed a program without adequate evidence or authorization.

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests that could improperly influence the reported work.

• Misuse of funds or resources in reporting: Misrepresenting the use of funding, facilities, equipment, or other resources when such misrepresentation affects the integrity of the reported activity.

• Undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence: Using AI tools in ways that violate the journal's disclosure requirements, compromise confidentiality, or result in materially misleading or unreliable content.

The journal distinguishes between intentional misconduct, honest errors, methodological limitations, and reasonable differences in interpretation. Differences in program design, community engagement approaches, analytical methods, or conclusions do not, by themselves, constitute misconduct. Assessment focuses on the accuracy of reporting, appropriate attribution, ethical conduct, and the integrity of the work.

2. Reporting Allegations

Authors, reviewers, readers, community partners, institutions, funding organizations, and other concerned parties may report suspected misconduct through the official contact details provided on the journal's contact page.

Reports should identify the manuscript or published article, describe the concern clearly and specifically, identify the relevant passages or materials, and provide available supporting evidence. Such evidence may include comparative publications, project documentation, activity records, photographs, evaluation instruments, correspondence, consent documentation, or other verifiable materials.

Where the allegation concerns a community service activity, relevant supporting evidence may include program schedules, implementation reports, anonymized evaluation data, records of collaboration with partner communities, or documentation demonstrating the actual scope of the activity.

Complainants are encouraged to provide contact information to facilitate clarification. Anonymous reports may also be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

The journal may request further explanation or evidence before proceeding with an assessment. Reports must be handled responsibly, and the identity and privacy of complainants and other parties will be protected as far as possible.

3. Initial Assessment

The editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy, whether the available evidence is sufficiently specific to warrant further examination, and whether the concern may affect the reliability, integrity, or ethical acceptability of the manuscript or published article.

The assessment may involve examining the manuscript, comparing published sources, reviewing submission records, checking relevant documentation, and consulting individuals with appropriate expertise.

For community service articles, the editor may also consider whether the reported activities, participant involvement, methods, implementation processes, and outcomes are adequately supported by the available documentation.

Similarity-checking software may be used as one assessment tool. However, a similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism. The editor will consider the context of the matching material, the nature of the content, citation practices, and the adequacy of attribution.

The initial assessment is intended to determine whether further examination is warranted; it does not constitute a final finding of misconduct.

4. Clarification and Opportunity to Respond

Where there are sufficient grounds for further examination, the editor will contact the authors or other relevant parties and explain the concerns requiring clarification.

Authors may be asked to provide supporting materials, including original data, project records, activity documentation, evaluation instruments, relevant source materials, ethics approval documentation where applicable, evidence of informed consent where required, or other information necessary to assess the allegation.

For allegations involving community participation or program implementation, the editor may request clarification concerning the partner organizations, activities conducted, participant involvement, data collection procedures, evaluation methods, and reported outcomes.

The parties concerned will be given a reasonable timeframe specified by the editor to respond and provide supporting evidence. Additional clarification may be requested when the response is incomplete or when further information is necessary.

Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct. However, the journal may proceed with its assessment based on the available evidence and may take appropriate editorial action when concerns remain unresolved.

5. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reports, supporting evidence, correspondence, and assessment materials will be handled confidentially and shared only with individuals whose involvement is necessary to assess or resolve the case.

The identity of the complainant will be protected as far as possible, subject to the requirements of a fair assessment, applicable institutional procedures, and relevant legal obligations. Personal information relating to community members, participants, and partner organizations will be handled with appropriate care.

Editors, reviewers, or other individuals who have a conflict of interest in the matter must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process.

If an allegation involves an editor or another individual responsible for handling the manuscript, responsibility will be transferred to an independent editor or an appropriate representative of the publisher who has no conflict of interest.

Independent expert advice may be sought when the allegation involves specialized methodological, technical, ethical, or community-related issues.

6. Coordination with Institutions

PKM: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat is responsible for editorial decisions and maintaining the accuracy and integrity of its publication record. However, investigating the conduct of researchers, project teams, or institutions may require the authority of the relevant institution.

Where a concern cannot be resolved through editorial clarification, or where a formal investigation is necessary, the journal may contact the institution where the activity was conducted, the authors' affiliated institutions, the relevant partner organization, or another competent body, as appropriate.

Such communication will be undertaken with due regard for confidentiality, privacy, and the rights of the parties concerned.

The journal may request relevant investigation findings or documentation to inform its editorial decision. Decisions will take into account the available evidence, the responses of the parties concerned, and any relevant institutional findings.

The journal may nevertheless take appropriate action to protect readers and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record when sufficient evidence establishes that a manuscript or published article contains serious errors, misleading information, or other problems affecting its reliability.

7. Measures During Assessment

For unpublished manuscripts, the journal may suspend peer review, editorial processing, or publication while a serious concern is being examined.

For published articles, the journal may consider issuing an Expression of Concern when substantial questions about the integrity or reliability of the article remain unresolved, available evidence is inconclusive, or a formal investigation is ongoing.

An Expression of Concern informs readers that a potentially significant issue has been identified and is being examined. It does not, by itself, constitute a finding of misconduct.

The journal will review the need to maintain, update, or withdraw the Expression of Concern when adequate evidence or investigation findings become available.

Where appropriate, the journal may also contact relevant institutions or other responsible parties to seek clarification while taking reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the publication record.

8. Decisions and Follow-Up Actions

The journal's response will be proportionate to the nature of the allegation, the strength of the evidence, the responses received, and the implications for the integrity and reliability of the manuscript or published article.

Possible outcomes include:

• Closing the case: When the allegation lacks sufficient supporting evidence or the concerns have been satisfactorily explained.

• Requesting clarification or revision: When a concern can be addressed through additional explanation, correction of reporting, or appropriate revision of an unpublished manuscript.

• Rejecting an unpublished manuscript: When serious concerns are substantiated or remain unresolved to a degree that prevents the journal from establishing the manuscript's integrity or suitability for publication.

• Publishing a correction: When an error can be corrected without undermining the overall reliability of the article.

• Issuing or updating an Expression of Concern: When significant questions remain unresolved and readers need to be informed.

• Retracting a published article: When sufficient grounds exist under applicable publication ethics guidance, including cases in which the findings are unreliable because of serious error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other substantial integrity concerns.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and does not necessarily imply that the authors intentionally committed misconduct. Honest errors may also warrant retraction when they materially undermine the reliability of the published work.

Correction and retraction notices will explain the reasons for the action and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles will generally remain accessible with clear identification of their retracted status to preserve the publication record, except where exceptional circumstances or applicable requirements justify another approach.

Where concerns involve the misrepresentation of community participation, consent, or program outcomes, editorial action will reflect the seriousness of the issue and its implications for the accuracy and ethical acceptability of the publication.

9. Communication, Documentation, and Appeals

The journal will securely maintain records of allegations, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessment procedures, and editorial decisions. Access to these records will be restricted to authorized individuals.

Relevant parties will be informed of progress and outcomes to the extent possible without compromising confidentiality, privacy, or the integrity of an ongoing assessment.

The time required to resolve a case will depend on its complexity, the availability of supporting evidence, the responses received, and the need for coordination with authors, institutions, partner organizations, or independent experts.

A party wishing to challenge an editorial decision may submit an appeal through the journal's official contact channels. The appeal must provide clear reasons for reconsideration and, where possible, new evidence or an explanation of why the original assessment may have overlooked relevant information.

Appeals will be considered by an individual who has no conflict of interest and, wherever possible, was not involved in the original decision. The journal may seek independent advice when necessary.

A case may be reopened if material new evidence becomes available or if there are reasonable grounds to reconsider the earlier assessment. All follow-up actions will be documented to support transparent decision-making and maintain an accurate scholarly record.