Ethics Flowcharts and Editorial Procedures

(Aligned with COPE Core Practices, Scopus Requirements, and International Publishing Best Practices)

1. SUSPECTED PLAGIARISM

1.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the detection, assessment, investigation and resolution of suspected plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, unattributed reuse and related integrity concerns in manuscripts submitted to or published by HCMCOUJS.

This procedure aims to:

protect research integrity;
ensure originality of scholarly work;
maintain transparency and fairness;
safeguard the scholarly record.

1.2. Grounds for Investigation

Possible concerns include:

substantial text overlap;
duplicate publication;
unattributed reuse;
self-plagiarism;
copied figures/tables/images;
translated plagiarism;
AI-assisted plagiarism;
paper mill indicators.

1.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Detection through software, reviewer, editor or reader	Editorial Office / Reviewer / Editor	Immediate	Case registered
2	Preliminary assessment	Handling Editor / Ethics Editor	Within 5 working days	Minor or serious concern
3	Request explanation and supporting evidence	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–14 working days	Explanation received
4	Ethics review	Ethics Editor / EIC	Within 10 working days	Clarification or formal investigation
5	Institutional consultation where appropriate	EIC	Within 5 working days	External investigation initiated
6	Final editorial decision	EIC / Editorial Committee	Within 5 working days	Revision / Reject / Retract
7	Recordkeeping and monitoring	Editorial Office	Ongoing	Ethics archive maintained

2. AUTHORSHIP DISPUTE

2.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the handling of authorship disputes, contribution disagreements, author order conflicts and allegations involving ghost, gift, honorary or fraudulent authorship practices.

2.2. Grounds for Investigation

Possible concerns include:

disputed author order;
undisclosed contributors;
ghost authorship;
honorary authorship;
authorship for sale;
unauthorized addition/removal of authors;
inconsistent contribution statements.

2.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Receipt of complaint	Editorial Office	Within 3 working days	Case acknowledged
2	Preliminary review	Handling Editor / Ethics Editor	Within 5 working days	Minor or serious dispute
3	Request contribution evidence	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–14 working days	Evidence received
4	Ethics review	Ethics Editor / Editorial Committee	Within 10 working days	Resolution or escalation
5	Institutional consultation where needed	EIC	Within 5 working days	Institutional review initiated
6	Final editorial decision	EIC	Within 5 working days	Correction / Reject / Retract
7	Metadata update and recordkeeping	Editorial Office	Ongoing	Records updated

3. REVIEWER MANIPULATION

3.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the detection, investigation and handling of reviewer manipulation, fake reviewer identities, fraudulent peer review and coordinated review misconduct

3.2. Grounds for Investigation

Possible concerns include:

fake reviewer accounts;
fabricated reviewer reports;
suspicious reviewer emails;
reviewer identity fraud;
paper mill review rings;
coordinated peer review manipulation;
undisclosed reviewer conflicts.

3.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Detection of suspicious reviewer activity	Editorial Office / Editor	Immediate	Concern registered
2	Reviewer identity verification	Managing Editor / Editorial Office	Within 5 working days	Identity confirmed or suspicious
3	Suspend affected review process if necessary	EIC	Immediate	Review paused
4	Ethics investigation	Ethics Editor / Editorial Committee	Within 10–15 working days	Misconduct confirmed or dismissed
5	Assign independent reviewers	Handling Editor	Within 5 working days	Review restarted
6	Final editorial decision	EIC	Within 5 working days	Resume / Reject / Retract
7	Notify institution where appropriate	Editorial Office	Within 5 working days	Institutional notification

4. AI MISUSE INVESTIGATION

4.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the handling of suspected unethical, undisclosed or fraudulent use of artificial intelligence technologies in research, authorship, peer review or editorial processes.

4.2. Grounds for Investigation

Possible concerns include:

hallucinated references;
fabricated AI-generated data;
fake AI-generated images;
undisclosed AI-generated text;
AI-generated reviewer identities;
AI confidentiality breaches;
synthetic datasets without disclosure.

4.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Detection of possible AI misuse	Editor / Reviewer / Reader	Immediate	Concern registered
2	Technical/editorial assessment	Technical Editor / Ethics Editor	Within 5–7 working days	Minor or serious concern
3	Request clarification and supporting files	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–14 working days	Explanation received
4	Ethics review	Ethics Editor / AI Oversight Team	Within 10 working days	Acceptable or problematic use
5	Additional expert verification where needed	Independent Expert	Within 10 working days	Findings completed
6	Final editorial decision	EIC	Within 5 working days	Revise / Reject / Retract
7	Documentation and monitoring	Editorial Office	Ongoing	Ethics records maintained

5. DATA FABRICATION/FALSIFICATION

5.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the handling of suspected fabricated, falsified, manipulated or unverifiable research data, figures, statistical analyses or supplementary materials.

5.2. Grounds for Investigation

Possible concerns include:

fabricated datasets;
manipulated images;
impossible statistical results;
duplicated figures;
unverifiable supplementary files;
selective reporting;
suspicious research patterns.

5.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Detection of suspicious data concern	Reviewer / Editor / Reader	Immediate	Concern registered
2	Preliminary editorial assessment	Handling Editor / Ethics Editor	Within 5 working days	Plausible concern identified
3	Request raw data and supporting evidence	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–21 working days	Evidence received
4	Independent expert/statistical review	Statistical Reviewer / Expert	Within 10–15 working days	Verification completed
5	Institutional consultation where appropriate	EIC	Within 5 working days	Institutional review initiated
6	Final editorial decision	EIC	Within 5 working days	Continue / Reject / Retract
7	Post-publication action if necessary	Production Editor	Ongoing	Correction / EoC / Retraction

6. CORRECTION / ERRATUM / CORRIGENDUM

6.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the correction of published scholarly content where errors, omissions, metadata inaccuracies or production mistakes are identified after publication but do not invalidate the overall reliability of the article.

This procedure aims to:

preserve transparency;
maintain the integrity of the scholarly record;
ensure traceability of corrections;
support accurate indexing and citation.

6.2. Grounds for Correction

Possible grounds include:

metadata inaccuracies;
author affiliation errors;
ORCID errors;
funding disclosure omissions;
reference inaccuracies;
production/layout mistakes;
minor factual inaccuracies;
figure/table labeling errors;
publisher-introduced errors;
author-introduced minor errors.

6.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Error identified or notification received	Author / Reader / Editor	Immediate	Error logged
2	Preliminary editorial assessment	Handling Editor / EIC	Within 5 working days	Minor or major issue identified
3	Classification of notice type	EIC / Production Editor	Within 3 working days	Correction / Erratum / Corrigendum
4	Request clarification where necessary	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–14 working days	Clarification received
5	Drafting and review of notice	Editorial Office / Authors / Production Editor	Within 7 working days	Notice finalized
6	Approval of correction notice	EIC	Within 3 working days	Approved for publication
7	Publication and metadata update	Production Editor / OJS Administrator	Within 5 working days	Linked notice published
8	Notification to indexing databases where appropriate	Editorial Office	Within 5 working days	Metadata synchronized

7. EXPRESSION OF CONCERN

7.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the issuance and management of an Expression of Concern where serious concerns exist regarding a published article, but available evidence remains incomplete, inconclusive or under active investigation.

This procedure aims to:

alert readers to potentially unreliable content;
preserve transparency;
protect the scholarly record;
allow due process during investigation.

7.2. Grounds for Expression of Concern

Possible grounds include:

suspected fabricated or falsified data;
unresolved authorship disputes;
unresolved ethical approval concerns;
suspected manipulated peer review;
pending institutional investigation;
serious AI misuse concerns;
inability to verify data or materials;
serious image integrity concerns.

7.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Receipt of concern or allegation	Editorial Office / Reader / Editor	Immediate	Case registered
2	Preliminary editorial assessment	Handling Editor / Ethics Editor	Within 5 working days	Concern plausible or dismissed
3	Request clarification or supporting evidence	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–14 working days	Response received
4	Internal ethics review	Ethics Editor / EIC	Within 10 working days	Further investigation required
5	Institutional consultation where appropriate	EIC	Within 5 working days	External investigation initiated
6	Decision on issuing Expression of Concern	EIC / Editorial Committee	Within 5 working days	Notice approved or not required
7	Publication of linked notice	Production Editor / OJS Administrator	Within 5 working days	Public notice published
8	Monitoring of investigation outcome	Ethics Editor / Editorial Office	Ongoing	Correction / Retraction / Closure

8. RETRACTION PROCEDURE

8.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the investigation and issuance of retractions where published articles are determined to be unreliable, unethical or seriously inconsistent with scholarly publishing standards.

This procedure aims to:

protect the integrity of the scholarly record;
alert readers to unreliable research;
maintain transparency and accountability;
ensure proper post-publication governance. .

8.2. Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be considered in cases involving:

fabricated or falsified data;
plagiarism;
duplicate publication;
manipulated peer review;
unethical research;
severe authorship misconduct;
paper mill activity;
undisclosed major conflicts of interest;
fraudulent AI-generated content;
unreliable findings.

8.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Receive allegation or identify concern	Editorial Office / Editor / Institution	Immediate	Case registered
2	Preliminary ethics assessment	Ethics Editor / EIC	Within 5 working days	Concern plausible or dismissed
3	Request author explanation and evidence	Editorial Office	Authors normally respond within 7–21 working days	Response received
4	Independent expert or institutional review where necessary	Ethics Editor / External Expert / Institution	Within 10–30 working days depending on complexity	Findings completed
5	Editorial ethics committee review	Editorial Committee / EIC	Within 10 working days	Retraction justified or not
6	Final editorial decision	EIC	Within 5 working days	Retract / Correct / Close case
7	Publish linked retraction notice	Production Editor / OJS Administrator	Within 5 working days	Retraction notice published
8	Notify indexing services and databases	Editorial Office	Within 5 working days	Metadata updated

9. COMPLAINTS & APPEALS

9.1. Purpose

This procedure establishes a fair, transparent and timely mechanism for handling complaints, appeals and whistleblowing reports related to HCMCOUJS editorial and publishing activities.

This procedure aims to:

ensure procedural fairness;
protect complainants and respondents;
support editorial accountability;
maintain trust in editorial processes.

9.2. Scope

This procedure applies to:

editorial complaints;
peer review complaints;
authorship complaints;
ethics complaints;
appeals against editorial decisions;
confidentiality concerns;
AI misuse reports;
reviewer conduct concerns;
whistleblowing reports.

9.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Receive complaint or appeal	Editorial Office	Within 3 working days	Case acknowledged
2	Preliminary assessment	Handling Editor / Ethics Editor	Within 5 working days	Valid concern or dismissal
3	Request clarification/evidence where necessary	Editorial Office	Response normally within 7–14 working days	Evidence collected
4	Independent review of case	Independent Editor / Ethics Committee	Within 10 working days	Recommendation issued
5	Institutional consultation where appropriate	EIC	Within 5 working days	External review initiated
6	Final editorial decision	EIC / Editorial Committee	Within 5 working days	Appeal accepted/rejected
7	Notify complainant and relevant parties	Editorial Office	Within 5 working days	Decision communicated
8	Recordkeeping and monitoring	Editorial Office	Ongoing	Ethics archive maintained

10. SPECIAL ISSUE ETHICS ESCALATION

10.1. Purpose

This procedure governs the escalation, investigation and management of ethical concerns arising from special issues, thematic collections, conference-linked issues or guest-edited sections.

This procedure aims to:

preserve editorial independence;
ensure integrity of guest-edited content;
prevent manipulation of editorial standards;
maintain transparency in special issue governance.

10.2. Scope of Ethical Concerns

Possible concerns include:

inadequate peer review;
guest editor conflicts of interest;
citation manipulation;
paper mill activity;
reciprocal publication networks;
guest editor self-promotion;
improper reviewer selection;
bypassing editorial standards;
unusually high acceptance rates.

10.3. Editorial Workflow Table

Step	Editorial Action	Responsible Person(s)	Recommended Timeline	Possible Outcomes
1	Detection or complaint regarding special issue	Editorial Office / Reader / Editor	Immediate	Concern registered
2	Preliminary assessment	EIC / Ethics Editor	Within 5 working days	Minor or serious concern
3	Suspend affected manuscripts or issue where necessary	EIC	Immediate	Processing paused
4	Request explanation from guest editor(s)	Editorial Office	Guest editor response normally within 7–14 working days	Response received
5	Independent review of peer review records and editorial handling	Independent Editor / Ethics Committee	Within 10–15 working days	Findings completed
6	Institutional or publisher-level consultation where needed	EIC / Editorial Council	Within 5 working days	Escalation initiated
7	Final decision	EIC / Editorial Council	Within 5 working days	Resume / Replace guest editor / Reject / Retract / Cancel issue
8	Public notice where appropriate	Editorial Office / Production Editor	Within 5 working days	Notice published

HCMCOU Journal of Science - Advances in Computational Structures