Sentralisasi is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and accountability of scholarly publishing. The journal takes all allegations of research misconduct and publication ethics violations seriously and handles them fairly, confidentially, objectively, and promptly. This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, particularly its guidance on Allegations of Misconduct, and the COPE guidance on research and publication misconduct and cooperation between journals and institutions.

This policy applies to allegations concerning manuscripts submitted to, under review by, accepted by, or published in Sentralisasi. It applies to authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the research and publication process. Allegations shall be assessed on their merits, and no individual shall be considered guilty solely because an allegation has been made.

Research misconduct refers to conduct that violates accepted standards of responsible research or publication ethics. Depending on the circumstances and applicable institutional or national rules, it may include fabrication or falsification of research data, plagiarism, inappropriate manipulation of research findings, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship misconduct, duplicate or redundant publication, and manipulation of the peer-review or publication process. The journal uses the COPE Core Practices and its guidance on research and publication misconduct to inform the assessment of suspected cases.

An allegation may concern intentional misconduct, reckless disregard for research integrity, or other serious breaches of ethical standards. Honest errors, methodological disagreements, differences in interpretation, or unintentional mistakes do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Each case shall be evaluated according to the available evidence, the nature of the concern, and the relevant ethical and institutional standards.

Any individual or institution may report a suspected case of research misconduct involving a manuscript submitted to or an article published in Sentralisasi. Reports may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or the journal's official editorial contact listed on the Sentralisasi journal website.

A report should, where possible, identify the manuscript or published article, describe the suspected misconduct, explain the basis for the concern, and provide relevant supporting documentation or other verifiable evidence. Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit an initial assessment. This procedure is informed by COPE's Core Practices on Allegations of Misconduct.

The journal will not reject a report solely because the person raising the concern requests confidentiality or does not wish to be publicly identified. However, the journal may be unable to investigate allegations that lack sufficient detail or evidence. The identity of the complainant will be protected as far as reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair investigation and applicable law.

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor shall conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibility, whether the information is sufficiently specific to warrant further examination, and whether any immediate action is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

The initial assessment may include reviewing the manuscript, article, research data, cited sources, editorial correspondence, peer-review records, similarity reports, ethics approvals, authorship statements, and other relevant documentation. The journal may request additional information from the complainant or the authors where appropriate. COPE's guidance on research and publication misconduct provides a framework for handling concerns that may require cooperation between journals and research institutions.

Editors who have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest in the case shall disclose that conflict and withdraw from handling the allegation where necessary. An independent editor or appropriately qualified person may be appointed to ensure an impartial assessment, consistent with COPE's Core Practices on publication ethics.

If the initial assessment identifies a credible concern that cannot be resolved through editorial checks alone, Sentralisasi may contact the corresponding author and, where appropriate, other co-authors to request a clear explanation and relevant supporting evidence. The authors shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised.

Where the allegation involves potentially serious research misconduct, requires access to original research records, or falls primarily within the authority of a research institution, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution, research integrity office, funder, or other competent authority. This approach follows the principles described in COPE's guidance, Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases.

The journal shall distinguish its editorial responsibilities from the institution's responsibility to conduct a formal investigation. Sentralisasi may assess the implications of the available evidence for the manuscript or published article, but it shall not present an allegation as a formally established finding of misconduct unless the available evidence justifies that conclusion. When an institutional investigation is necessary, the journal may request that the institution communicate its findings and any relevant supporting information, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.

If an institution does not respond, declines to investigate, or cannot provide a timely resolution, the journal may send follow-up requests, seek advice from appropriate research integrity experts, or consider other proportionate measures to safeguard the scholarly record. Such measures shall be based on the available evidence and the seriousness of the concern, in accordance with the principles in the COPE guidance on cooperation between journals and research institutions.

All allegations shall be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible. Information shall be shared only with individuals or institutions who need it to assess or investigate the concern, or where disclosure is required by law or necessary to protect the integrity of the research record.

The complainant, the person whose conduct is questioned, and other relevant parties shall be treated fairly and respectfully. Authors shall be informed of the substance of the concerns and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before the journal makes an editorial determination, except where urgent action is necessary to prevent harm or preserve evidence. The journal's procedures are informed by the COPE Core Practices, including its guidance on allegations of misconduct and complaints and appeals.

The journal shall not tolerate retaliation, intimidation, or harassment against individuals who raise concerns in good faith or participate in an investigation. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may be referred to the appropriate institution or authority when justified by the available evidence.

Editorial decisions shall be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern and shall take account of the evidence available, the authors' explanations, and any findings communicated by a competent institution. Depending on the circumstances, the journal may close the case without further action, request clarification or correction, require additional review, reject a manuscript, issue a correction, publish an expression of concern, or retract a published article.

If an allegation is not substantiated, the journal shall ordinarily close the case without an adverse finding against the person concerned. Where necessary, the journal may document the outcome internally and communicate the decision to the relevant parties. The absence of sufficient evidence to substantiate an allegation shall not automatically be interpreted as proof that the allegation was malicious.

If the evidence establishes that a published article contains serious errors or research or publication misconduct that compromises its reliability or integrity, Sentralisasi shall consider an appropriate post-publication notice or other corrective action. Decisions concerning corrections and retractions shall be guided by COPE's Core Practices on Post-publication Discussions and Corrections and the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

An expression of concern may be considered when serious doubts remain about the reliability or integrity of an article and the investigation is ongoing, inconclusive, or delayed. The notice shall explain the nature of the concern without making unsupported claims. If a retraction is warranted, the journal shall publish a clear and identifiable retraction notice linked to the original article and explain the reason for the retraction as transparently as possible, consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Sentralisasi shall maintain appropriate records of allegations, correspondence, supporting documentation, editorial assessments, institutional communications, and decisions. Access to these records shall be restricted to authorized individuals and retained in accordance with applicable institutional policies, privacy requirements, and legal obligations.

Records shall be sufficiently complete to explain the basis for the journal's decisions and demonstrate that concerns were handled consistently and fairly. The journal shall use relevant COPE guidance, including Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases, when determining what information should be exchanged with institutions and how the case should be documented.

A person directly affected by an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, identifying the decision being challenged and providing relevant evidence or arguments. An appeal shall, where practicable, be assessed by an editor or independent person who was not responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The journal shall distinguish appeals against editorial decisions from new allegations of misconduct. New information that raises a substantive research integrity concern may be assessed under this policy, even if an earlier editorial decision has already been made. The procedure is informed by the COPE Core Practices on Complaints and Appeals.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for implementing this policy in consultation with the editorial board and, where necessary, appropriate research integrity experts or relevant institutions. The journal may revise this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, applicable regulations, institutional procedures, and updated COPE guidance.

This policy should be read together with the journal's other publication ethics policies and the relevant COPE resources. The principal reference is the COPE Core Practices, supplemented by the guidance on cooperation between research institutions and journals and the COPE Retraction Guidelines.