Misconduct

Catalyst Research Chronicles (CRC Journal) addresses any instances of scientific misconduct on a case-by-case basis, following the guidelines established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), and ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

Definition of Misconduct

We endorse the summary of scientific misconduct provided by WAME, which includes the following:

★ Falsification of Data:
This involves fabrication, deceptive selective reporting, omission of conflicting data, or the intentional suppression and/or distortion of data.

★ Plagiarism:
The act of appropriating the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without proper attribution and presenting them as one’s own original work.

★ Improprieties of Authorship:
Improper attribution of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresenting material as original in multiple publications, including individuals who have not made a substantial contribution to the work, or submitting multi-authored publications without the consent of all authors.

★ Misappropriation of Ideas:
The improper use of ideas obtained during peer review, grant applications, or collaborative research. The wholesale appropriation of another person’s intellectual property constitutes misconduct.

★ Violation of Accepted Research Practices:
Serious deviations from accepted research practices, including manipulating experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical methods, or improper reporting of results.

★ Failure to Comply with Legislative and Regulatory Requirements:
Failure to adhere to local regulations regarding the use of funds, animal care, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or hazardous materials.

★ Inappropriate Behavior Regarding Misconduct:
This includes unfounded or knowingly false allegations of misconduct, failure to report misconduct, withholding or destroying information relevant to an investigation, and retaliatory actions against those involved in the process.

In addition to the above, Catalyst Research Chronicles (CRC Journal) considers the following practices to be misconduct:

★ Duplicate Publication:
Submission of the same work (in any language) to multiple journals simultaneously. For cases of secondary publication, authors should refer to the Duplicate Publication Policy for guidance.

★ Failure to Declare Conflicts of Interest:
Failure to disclose conflicts of interest, funding sources, or other relevant information that may affect the transparency of the research.

Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct

Catalyst Research Chronicles (CRC Journal) utilizes iThenticate to detect potential plagiarism and ensures that submitted content is original. We encourage all peer reviewers to report any suspected misconduct related to the manuscripts they review. We also urge readers to contact us regarding any potential misconduct involving published content.

All allegations of misconduct will be addressed seriously and investigated according to the COPE flowchart. Actions will be taken based on the severity of the issue, which may include retraction, correction, or other appropriate measures in line with established best practices.