1. Scope of Concerns

This policy covers suspected research misconduct and related breaches of publication integrity, including:

• Fabrication: inventing data, research participants, interviews, observations, quotations, sources, or findings.
• Falsification: manipulating or selectively omitting data, evidence, images, or research procedures in a way that misrepresents the study.
• Plagiarism: presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, or other work without appropriate acknowledgement.
• Redundant or duplicate publication: publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure, justification, or reference to the earlier publication.
• Authorship misrepresentation: including ineligible authors, excluding eligible contributors, trading authorship, or providing false contribution statements.
• Ethical breaches: misrepresenting ethical approval or consent, compromising participant confidentiality, or conducting research without required ethical safeguards.
• Undisclosed competing interests: concealing relationships or interests that could materially affect the interpretation or evaluation of the work.
• Manipulation of publication processes: falsifying reviewer identities, interfering with independent review, or manipulating citations.
• Misuse of AI: using AI to fabricate evidence or references, concealing uses that require disclosure, or breaching the journal’s restrictions on AI in editorial work and peer review.

These examples are not exhaustive. Differences in theoretical perspective, religious interpretation, or scholarly judgment are not, by themselves, evidence of misconduct.

2. Reporting an Allegation

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other concerned individuals may report suspected misconduct to the editorial office through the journal’s Contact page. The subject line should identify the message as a research integrity concern.

A report should provide, where available:

• The manuscript or article title, author names, and DOI, URL, or submission number.
• A specific description of the concern.
• The passages, figures, tables, sources, or research procedures in question.
• Supporting evidence, such as source comparisons, documents, or verifiable links.
• Relevant relationships or competing interests of the person reporting the concern.
• Contact details for follow-up, if the person is willing to provide them.

Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. The journal may also examine concerns raised in public forums when the underlying evidence warrants assessment.

Reports should avoid unnecessary disclosure of participant identities or other sensitive information. Where confidential evidence is essential, the reporting person should contact the editorial office to arrange an appropriate method of submission.

3. Initial Assessment

An editor without a relevant conflict of interest will assess whether the report is sufficiently specific, relevant to the journal, and supported by information that warrants further examination.

The initial assessment may involve:

• Checking the manuscript, published article, and relevant editorial records.
• Comparing the questioned content with the cited evidence or original sources.
• Requesting clarification from the person reporting the concern.
• Seeking advice from an independent subject specialist or research integrity adviser.
• Determining whether immediate steps are needed to protect participants or the scholarly record.

Review, acceptance, or publication may be paused while a significant concern is examined. A pause is a precautionary measure and does not constitute a finding of misconduct.

Reports that lack sufficient evidence may be closed with an explanation where appropriate. They may be reopened if material new evidence becomes available.

4. Author Response and Further Examination

Where further examination is warranted, the journal will normally contact the corresponding author and, where appropriate, other affected authors. The journal will explain the substantive concerns and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond within a stated timeframe.

Authors may be asked to provide relevant source materials, research records, data, analytical procedures, ethics documentation, consent information, or an explanation of disputed contributions.

Requests for supporting materials will take account of confidentiality, consent restrictions, and the nature of the research. Sensitive participant information should not be made public merely to resolve an inquiry.

If the response is inadequate, unavailable, or raises further concerns, the journal may seek an independent assessment or refer the matter to the relevant institution, employer, funder, or research integrity body.

Failure to respond is not, by itself, proof of misconduct. However, the journal may make an editorial decision on the available evidence if substantial concerns remain unresolved. Withdrawal of a submission does not automatically end an integrity inquiry.

5. Editorial Outcomes

Action will be proportionate to the evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and its effect on the reliability and integrity of the work.

Before publication

• Close the inquiry and resume processing if the concern is satisfactorily resolved.
• Require clarification, correction, additional disclosure, or further review.
• Reject the manuscript where significant integrity concerns or publication requirements remain unmet.
• Refer serious concerns to the appropriate institution or other responsible body.

After publication

• Correction: address a specific error or omission when the article’s principal findings remain reliable.
• Expression of concern: alert readers to significant unresolved concerns when the available evidence or an ongoing investigation does not yet support a final conclusion.
• Retraction: address sufficiently established problems that undermine the reliability or ethical integrity of the publication, in accordance with the journal’s Correction and Retraction policy.
• No amendment: retain the article unchanged when the evidence does not establish a need to alter the published record.

Public notices will explain the basis for the action and link to the affected article. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and does not necessarily imply deliberate misconduct; serious honest errors may also require retraction.

6. Confidentiality and Impartiality

Information will be shared only with those who need it to assess or resolve the concern, subject to necessary institutional referrals and publication of appropriate editorial notices. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

The journal will take reasonable steps to protect the identity of individuals reporting concerns in good faith and does not tolerate retaliation through its editorial processes. An unsubstantiated allegation is not automatically treated as a malicious report.

Editors with relevant conflicts must recuse themselves. Allegations concerning an editor will be handled by another independent editor. If the Editor-in-Chief is implicated, the matter will be referred to the publisher for the appointment of an independent handler.

Editorial decisions will be based on evidence and the integrity of the scholarly record, regardless of the status, affiliation, nationality, or beliefs of the individuals concerned.

7. Communication and Appeals

The journal will acknowledge reports where contact details are available and communicate material developments and outcomes to the parties as appropriate. The extent of information shared may be limited by confidentiality and ongoing institutional proceedings.

The time required depends on the complexity of the case, the availability of evidence, and any external investigation. The journal will seek to avoid unnecessary delay while allowing a fair assessment.

An appeal may be submitted through the Contact page where there is material new evidence, a factual error, or a concern about the fairness of the procedure. Appeals should identify the decision being challenged and provide specific supporting reasons.

Appeals will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. The outcome and its reasons will be communicated to the appellant. An appeal does not automatically suspend action needed to protect readers or the scholarly record.

1. Minimum Criteria for Authorship

Each person listed as an author must meet all four of the following requirements:

1. Substantial scholarly contribution: contribute substantially to the conception or design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of its data, sources, or evidence. For theoretical or interpretive research, this may include developing the central argument or analytical framework.
2. Intellectual contribution to the manuscript: draft the article or critically revise it for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval: approve the manuscript for submission and the final version to be published.
4. Accountability: agree to take responsibility for the work and cooperate in investigating and resolving questions concerning its accuracy or integrity.

All individuals who meet these requirements must be included as authors. Individuals who have made substantial research contributions should be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in drafting or critical revision and final approval.

2. The 14 CRediT Contributor Roles

Authors should use the following role names when reporting contributions. The descriptions below are concise adaptations for this journal; the official CRediT descriptors provide the authoritative definitions.

Role names and adapted descriptions are attributed to CRediT / NISO. Descriptions have been shortened for this policy.

3. Assigning and Confirming Roles

• Assign only roles that accurately describe work actually performed.
• One contributor may hold several roles, and several contributors may share the same role.
• Not every role applies to every study; unused roles should be omitted.
• The corresponding author coordinates role assignment, but each contributor must have an opportunity to review and confirm their assigned roles.
• Where useful, shared roles may be qualified as lead, equal, or supporting contributions. These qualifiers do not determine authorship eligibility or author order.
• Review contribution statements after substantial revisions to ensure that they remain accurate.

Contributions should be interpreted in relation to the actual research design. For example, conducting interviews or gathering archival evidence may constitute Investigation, while managing a documented collection of research materials may constitute Data curation.

Using an existing word processor, reference manager, or analysis application does not by itself constitute Software. Routine proofreading should not be presented as substantive intellectual revision.

The Writing – review & editing role describes contributions within the author or research team. It does not make journal peer reviewers or handling editors authors of the manuscript.

4. CRediT Author Statement

Every manuscript must include a section entitled “Author Contributions (CRediT)”. List each author’s full name followed by the applicable CRediT roles. The statement must be agreed by all authors.

During double-blind review, provide the identifying statement in a separate title-page file or other non-review submission material. It must be incorporated into the final manuscript before the References.

Example: multi-author article

Example: single-author article

These examples are illustrative. Authors must replace the sample names and select roles that reflect their actual contributions rather than reproduce the examples unchanged.

5. Author Responsibilities

All authors must:

• Meet the minimum authorship criteria and consent to being named.
• Provide an accurate account of their contributions.
• Approve the submission, substantive revisions, and final version.
• Ensure appropriate attribution of sources and originality of their work.
• Know which co-authors are responsible for other contributions and have confidence in their integrity.
• Disclose relevant conflicts of interest, funding, and AI use.
• Protect confidential information and meet applicable research ethics requirements.
• Cooperate with editorial inquiries and report significant errors or integrity concerns promptly.

The corresponding author manages communication with the journal, confirms agreement on the author list and contribution statement, and ensures that editorial decisions and reviewer comments are shared with co-authors.

Corresponding authorship does not automatically indicate the largest contribution or transfer the responsibilities of other authors to one person.

6. Non-Author Contributions

Contributors who do not meet all authorship criteria should be recognised in the Acknowledgements, with their permission. Their contributions may be described using applicable CRediT roles or a clear narrative explanation.

Funding acquisition, resources, supervision, project administration, or technical assistance may be important contributions without independently qualifying a person for authorship.

Contributors must not be excluded from authorship merely because they are students, research assistants, community collaborators, or locally based researchers. Eligibility depends on their actual contributions and fulfilment of the authorship criteria.

Research participation alone does not establish authorship. Acknowledgements must respect consent, confidentiality, and any commitments to protect participants’ identities.

7. Author Order and Authorship Changes

Authors must agree collectively on the author order before submission, taking account of their contributions and disciplinary conventions. CRediT does not prescribe author order, and counting assigned roles is not a substitute for agreement on the significance of contributions.

Requests to add or remove authors, change their order, or change the corresponding author after submission must be submitted to the editorial office with:

• A reasoned explanation for the proposed change.
• An updated author list and CRediT statement.
• Written agreement from all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed.
• Confirmation that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria.

Changes require editorial approval and must not be introduced silently during revision or proof correction. The journal may pause processing while a request is assessed.

Post-publication changes require formal assessment and, where justified, a published correction. If agreement cannot be obtained, the matter is treated as a dispute.

8. Authorship Integrity and AI

The journal prohibits:

• Gift, guest, or honorary authorship: including individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria.
• Ghost authorship: omitting eligible authors or concealing substantive contributions that should be disclosed.
• Coercive authorship: requiring inclusion through authority or pressure without qualifying contributions.
• Purchased or traded authorship: buying, selling, offering, or exchanging positions on the author list.
• Unauthorised authorship: naming individuals without their knowledge and approval.
• False contribution statements: assigning CRediT roles for activities not performed.

For articles derived from theses or dissertations, supervisory status alone does not establish authorship. Students’ qualifying contributions must be recognised accurately.

9. Authorship Disputes

Authorship or contributorship concerns should be reported through the journal’s Contact page, identifying the manuscript or article and supplying relevant explanations and supporting evidence.

The editorial office may request contribution records, written agreements, or clarification from the parties. Review or publication may be paused while a dispute remains unresolved.

Editors do not adjudicate conflicting accounts of research contributions that require institutional investigation. Unresolved disputes may be referred to the relevant institutions or research integrity bodies.

Depending on the evidence, the journal may require amendments, reject a submission, or issue an appropriate post-publication notice. An authorship dispute alone does not automatically warrant retraction; action will reflect the findings and their implications for the published record.

1. Scope of Discussion

Post-publication discussion should relate directly to an identifiable article published in the journal. Relevant contributions may address:

• The interpretation of findings, sources, or theoretical arguments.
• Research design, methods, analytical procedures, or limitations.
• Relevant evidence or scholarship that may affect the article’s conclusions.
• Alternative explanations or comparative perspectives.
• Factual inaccuracies, unclear statements, or questions about reproducibility.
• Ethical or publication integrity concerns requiring editorial examination.

Disagreement with an article’s theoretical position, religious interpretation, or conclusions is not by itself evidence of error or misconduct. Critical discussion should explain its reasoning and engage with the published argument fairly.

2. How to Submit a Comment

Comments should be sent to the editorial office through the journal’s Contact page. Use the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title]”.

Please include:

• The article title, author names, and DOI or article URL.
• The commenter’s name, affiliation where applicable, and contact details.
• A clear explanation of the point being raised, identifying relevant passages, pages, tables, or figures.
• Supporting references, evidence, or analysis where appropriate.
• Any relevant conflicts of interest.
• Whether the submission is intended for public discussion or confidential editorial consideration.

Comments should be concise, focused, and sufficiently detailed to allow assessment. There is no fixed expiry date for raising a substantive concern about a published article.

Individuals reporting sensitive concerns may request confidentiality. Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain specific and credible information, although anonymous allegations are not automatically eligible for publication as scholarly commentary.

3. Editorial Assessment

An editor without a relevant conflict of interest will assess the submission for relevance, accuracy, clarity, supporting evidence, and scholarly value. The journal may request clarification or revision and may consult an independent specialist when necessary.

Comments must address the work rather than attack individuals. The journal will not publish harassment, discriminatory language, unsupported personal accusations, promotional material, or unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.

A critical or unfavourable assessment of a published article will not be rejected merely because it challenges the authors or the journal. Equally, submission of a comment does not guarantee publication.

Where a message combines inappropriate wording with a credible substantive concern, the editor may request revisions to the wording while examining the underlying evidence separately.

4. Author Responses

Authors will normally be invited to respond to substantive comments concerning their article. The editorial office will provide the relevant points and specify a reasonable response period appropriate to their complexity.

Responses should address the issues directly, provide supporting evidence where needed, and acknowledge any established errors or limitations. Responses are subject to the same standards of relevance, accuracy, and respectful language as the original comment.

Authors may request additional time with an explanation. Failure to respond does not establish that a criticism is correct and does not automatically prevent publication of a comment that meets the journal’s standards. Authors do not have a veto over legitimate scholarly criticism.

5. Publication of Discussions

Accepted contributions may be published as a Comment, Author Response, or Editorial Note, as appropriate. These are post-publication correspondence categories and are distinguished from original research articles and scholarly review articles.

Published discussions will identify and link to the article concerned. Where feasible, the article page will also link to the discussion so that readers can follow the exchange.

Comments and responses undergo editorial assessment and may receive independent expert review where needed. They will not be described as externally peer-reviewed unless that process has taken place.

The journal may publish a comment and response together or separately. Further exchanges may be considered when they contribute material new evidence or analysis. Repetitive exchanges may be closed with an explanation.

Discussion on external scholarly platforms may also inform editorial assessment. Readers seeking formal action should notify the editorial office directly, as the journal cannot guarantee that it will identify every discussion elsewhere.

6. Errors and Integrity Concerns

Comments identifying possible errors or misconduct will be assessed under the journal’s relevant policies. Confidential allegations will not automatically be published as discussion contributions.

• Specific errors may require a correction when the article’s principal findings remain reliable.
• Significant unresolved concerns may require an expression of concern while further examination is undertaken.
• Established problems affecting the reliability or ethical integrity of the work may require retraction or other appropriate action.

Decisions will follow the journal’s Allegations of Research Misconduct and Correction and Retraction policies. Scholarly disagreement alone is not a basis for retraction.

7. Communication and Appeals

The editorial office will acknowledge submissions where contact details are available and communicate its decision or requests for further information. Assessment time depends on the complexity of the issues and the need for author responses or independent advice.

A person who believes that a decision involved a factual error, a material procedural problem, or overlooked evidence may request reconsideration through the Contact page. The request should identify the decision and provide specific reasons and supporting information.

Appeals will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to the publisher for independent handling.

1. Reporting an Error or Concern

Authors must notify the editorial office promptly when they discover a significant error or integrity concern in their published work. Readers, reviewers, and other parties may also report concerns.

Reports should be submitted through the journal’s Contact page and should include:

• The article title, author names, and DOI or article URL.
• A clear description of the error or concern.
• The affected passages, figures, tables, references, or other content.
• Supporting evidence and, where possible, the proposed correction.
• Any relevant competing interests of the person reporting the concern.

Anonymous reports will be assessed when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. There is no fixed expiry date for reporting a substantive problem with a published article.

2. Corrections

A correction is appropriate when an error affects the accuracy, clarity, attribution, or interpretation of part of an article, but the principal findings and overall conclusions remain reliable. Errors introduced by either the authors or the journal may require correction.

Examples include:

• Incorrect numerical values, labels, quotations, or references that do not invalidate the main conclusions.
• Errors in tables or figures that can be corrected without undermining the study.
• Omitted or inaccurate funding or conflict-of-interest declarations.
• Incorrect author details or justified changes to attribution following appropriate assessment.
• Production errors that materially affect the published content.

The correction notice will identify the article, explain the error, provide the corrected information, and state any implications for the findings or conclusions.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning, attribution, discoverability, or interpretation may be addressed without a separate formal notice. Substantive amendments must not be made silently.

Journal Ownership

J-MPI (Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam) is published by Department of Islamic Education Management, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang, Indonesia.

The journal operates within the university's academic publishing environment and serves as a scholarly platform for disseminating empirical research and community-service articles in economics and business.

Journal Management

JMPI is managed by an editorial team responsible for the journal's academic direction, manuscript evaluation, peer-review coordination, publication decisions, and the maintenance of publication quality and integrity.

The Editor-in-Chief leads the editorial process and oversees the implementation of the journal's editorial policies. Editorial board members contribute subject expertise and support the evaluation of submissions within their respective areas of specialization.

The journal's editorial team and institutional affiliations are publicly listed on the Editorial Team page.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made according to the journal's scope, scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and compliance with publication ethics. The journal aims to ensure that manuscript evaluation is conducted fairly and independently of inappropriate commercial, personal, or institutional influence.

The publisher provides the institutional framework for journal operations, while editorial decisions concerning individual manuscripts are handled through the journal's editorial process in accordance with its published policies.

Contact Information

For questions concerning journal management, editorial policies, or publication procedures, please visit the journal's Contact page.