Journal Policies
Whistleblowing
NEO CIVIC EDUCATION: MEDIA KAJIAN PANCASILA DAN KEWARGANEGARAAN
Whistleblowing & Ethics Complaints
How to raise a concern about research or publication ethics, and how whistle-blowers are protected. Click a section to open it.
01Purpose▾
Neo Civic Education: Media Kajian Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan welcomes reports of possible ethical problems in manuscripts, published articles, peer review, or the running of the journal. Reports are handled confidentially, fairly, and on evidence, following the COPE Core Practices on allegations of misconduct and complaints and appeals, and the COPE flowcharts.
| Who can report | Anyone: readers, authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, and the public. |
| What to report | Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism), duplicate publication, authorship problems, undisclosed conflicts of interest, ethical breaches in research with people, citation or peer-review manipulation, paper mills, undisclosed use of generative AI, and misconduct by reviewers or editors. |
| Not covered | Disagreement with an editorial decision on your own manuscript. Use an appeal instead (section 05). |
02How to report▾
1. Email neociviceducation@unima.ac.id with the subject line “Research integrity concern – [manuscript ID or article DOI]”.
2. Give the article title and DOI or the manuscript ID, a clear description of the concern, and the specific evidence (for example, the overlapping passages and their sources, or the data that appear wrong).
3. Give your name and contact details, and say whether you have any conflict of interest.
4. Do not make the allegation public while it is being assessed.
03Confidentiality and protection▾
— The identity of the person who reports is not shared with the authors or anyone outside the editorial office without their consent.
— People who report in good faith are protected. Reporting a concern will never affect the handling of their own manuscripts or reviews.
— Anonymous reports are considered only if they contain specific, verifiable evidence.
— Authors are presumed to act in good faith and always have the chance to respond.
— Allegations made in bad faith are themselves treated as misconduct.
04What happens next▾
| Acknowledgement | Within 7 working days. |
| Preliminary assessment | Within 14 days: is the concern specific, credible, and within the journal’s remit? If not, the case is closed and the reporter is told. |
| Investigation | The editors check the evidence, contact the authors, and, where needed, refer the case to the authors’ institution, following the Research Misconduct policy. |
| Outcome | No action, correction, expression of concern, or retraction. See Correction, Retraction and Withdrawal. The reporter is told when the case is closed, but details may stay confidential. |
05Complaints and appeals▾
— Appeal against a decision on your own manuscript: write to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, explaining why the decision should be reconsidered. The appeal is decided by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.
— Complaint about the journal’s processes (for example delays, handling, or communication): write to the Editor-in-Chief, who replies after reviewing the case.
— Complaint or concern about the Editor-in-Chief: mark the email “Confidential – for the publisher”. The Managing Editor forwards it to the publisher, Universitas Negeri Manado, without the Editor-in-Chief seeing it, and the publisher handles it.
— Concern about a reviewer or an editor: write to the Editor-in-Chief. The person concerned is removed from the case while it is assessed.
