Guidelines for Editors in case of Suspected Fabricated Data in Manuscript

When a peer reviewer detects potentially manipulated or fabricated data in a research text/paper during the review process, they promptly inform the editor. The editor then thanks the reviewer and requests written proof to enable appropriate action. The editor also asks a second peer reviewer to verify the allegation. Once convinced, the editor contacts the author for an explanation, without directly accusing them.

The author may either respond or remain silent

If the author remains silent, the editor contacts all remaining authors.
The author may provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation, a misleading response, or admit fault. a. If the author provides a reasonable and acceptable explanation, the editor apologizes and informs the peer reviewer to proceed. b. If the author provides a misleading response or admits fault, the editor informs all concerned authors to address the matter with their institution or guild for detailed scrutiny and review.
The editor contacts the authors' guild to request an investigation, taking the same action if the authors do not respond initially.
The authors' guild examines the case and concludes whether the author is innocent or guilty. a. If the author is found innocent, the editor apologizes to the author and provides feedback to the peer reviewer to proceed. b. If the author is found guilty, the editor rejects the text/paper and informs the reviewer of the final decision.
Share Page Improvements
Your volunteer spirit shapes our community. For potential enhancements, just like Wikipedia, click the 'Propose Edit' button.