Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC) is committed to maintaining research integrity, publication ethics, and the reliability of the scholarly record. The journal takes allegations of research misconduct seriously and assesses concerns involving submitted manuscripts, published articles, authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the publication process. This policy follows the recommendations in COPE, Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns, which advises journal editors to establish mechanisms for receiving and responding to allegations of research, publication, and peer-review misconduct.

MACC distinguishes an allegation from an established finding of misconduct. The journal will assess the available evidence, give relevant parties an appropriate opportunity to respond, and avoid reaching conclusions before it has considered the information reasonably available. Where a concern requires a formal investigation of research conduct, MACC may contact the relevant institution, employer, or research integrity office. This approach follows COPE, Cooperation Between Universities and Journals: Research Integrity, which addresses cooperation between journals and research institutions in handling suspected misconduct.

For the purposes of this policy, research misconduct refers to conduct that undermines the integrity, reliability, or ethical acceptability of research or scholarly publication. Potential concerns include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, inappropriate manipulation of images, duplicate or redundant publication, authorship misconduct, citation manipulation, manipulation of peer review, breaches of research ethics, and other serious violations of accepted research or publication standards. COPE identifies these issues as areas for which journals should establish clear policies and procedures in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Allegations may concern manuscripts under review, articles already published, or conduct during editorial assessment and peer review. They may originate from readers, authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, funders, or other individuals with relevant information. MACC will consider concerns raised anonymously as well as concerns submitted with the complainant's identity, provided that the information allows a reasonable assessment of the issue. COPE provides guidance on responding to concerns about submitted and published work in its Responding to Concerns Raised Directly flowchart.

Anyone who has a credible concern about possible research or publication misconduct involving a manuscript submitted to or an article published by MACC may contact the editorial office through the journal's official communication channels. The complainant should identify the manuscript or article, describe the suspected problem, and provide supporting information such as relevant documents, published sources, data discrepancies, image comparisons, or other evidence where available. COPE recommends that journals establish a clear contact point and documented procedures for receiving allegations in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

MACC encourages complainants to provide specific, factual information rather than unsupported accusations or personal attacks. The journal may request clarification or additional evidence when the initial information does not allow a meaningful assessment. The journal will consider the substance of the concern rather than dismissing it solely because the complainant has not disclosed their identity. COPE discusses practical approaches to handling concerns raised through different channels in Responding to Concerns Raised Directly.

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial office will record the concern and conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether it falls within the journal's remit and whether the available information warrants further examination. The editor may review the manuscript, publication history, source material, author declarations, relevant correspondence, and other evidence appropriate to the concern. COPE advises editors to develop documented processes for identifying and assessing ethical concerns in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

The preliminary assessment does not constitute a formal institutional investigation or a final finding of misconduct. MACC will distinguish credible evidence from speculation and will consider reasonable alternative explanations for apparent irregularities. Where the concern lacks sufficient support, the journal may close the matter while documenting its assessment, subject to any new evidence that subsequently emerges. COPE's Responding to Concerns Raised Directly flowchart provides a framework for editors handling concerns about published work.

When an allegation warrants further examination, MACC may contact the corresponding author or other relevant authors and request a substantive explanation and supporting documentation. Depending on the nature of the concern, the journal may request original data, research protocols, ethics approval documentation, consent records, image source files, trial registration details, or other materials relevant to the assessment. COPE's guidance on suspected data fabrication describes steps editors can take before publication in Fabricated Data in a Submitted Manuscript.

MACC will communicate the nature of the concern clearly enough to allow a meaningful response, subject to legitimate confidentiality requirements and the need to protect an ongoing investigation. The journal may consult independent experts when specialised assessment is necessary, provided that confidentiality and conflicts of interest receive appropriate attention. COPE recommends clear procedures for responding to suspected ethical breaches and for seeking institutional or independent advice when needed in Develop Guidelines for Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches.

When an allegation concerns the conduct of a researcher and requires a formal investigation beyond the journal's remit, MACC may refer the matter to the relevant university, hospital, research institution, employer, funder, or research integrity office. The journal may provide relevant documentation and request information about the institution's assessment or investigation, subject to applicable confidentiality, privacy, and legal requirements. COPE addresses this division of responsibilities in Cooperation Between Universities and Journals: Research Integrity.

MACC will generally rely on the relevant institution to investigate matters requiring access to research records, employment information, laboratory documentation, or other evidence that the journal cannot independently verify. The journal will retain responsibility for editorial decisions and for protecting the integrity of its published record. COPE's When Institutions Are Contacted by Journals flowchart describes the role of institutions in addressing concerns raised by journal editors.

If an institution declines to investigate, does not respond, or cannot reach a conclusion, MACC may assess the evidence available to the journal and consider appropriate editorial action. The journal may seek advice from other relevant bodies or request additional documentation when necessary. The absence of an institutional finding does not automatically establish misconduct or require the journal to disregard credible evidence. COPE discusses complex cases involving institutional inaction in Scientific Misconduct Claim from a Reader Where the Institution Will Not Investigate.

MACC will handle allegations as confidentially as reasonably possible and will restrict access to information to individuals who need it to assess or investigate the concern. The journal will not disclose the complainant's identity unnecessarily, subject to applicable law, procedural fairness, and the requirements of a legitimate investigation. COPE recommends that journals establish procedures for impartial and confidential handling of ethical allegations in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Individuals involved in assessing an allegation must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and should not lead the assessment when their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. MACC will assess evidence fairly and will not treat the submission of a good-faith concern as proof of misconduct by the complainant or the person named in the allegation. These procedures support the impartial and confidential processes recommended in COPE, Develop Guidelines for Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches.

Allegations of data fabrication or falsification may involve invented observations, altered results, inconsistent source data, or discrepancies between reported findings and supporting records. MACC may request original data and explanations and may contact the relevant institution when the concern requires formal investigation. COPE provides a specific editorial workflow for suspected fabrication in Fabricated Data in a Submitted Manuscript and a separate workflow for concerns identified after publication in Fabricated Data in a Published Article.

Allegations of plagiarism or redundant publication may involve unattributed copying, inappropriate reuse of text or data, or publication of substantially overlapping work without adequate disclosure. MACC will assess the nature, extent, context, and attribution of the overlap rather than relying exclusively on a similarity score. COPE provides guidance for handling plagiarism in submitted manuscripts in Plagiarism in a Submitted Manuscript and for published articles in Plagiarism in a Published Article.

Allegations of inappropriate image manipulation may involve changes that distort, conceal, or misrepresent research findings. The journal may request original image files and relevant explanations and may seek specialist assessment when needed. COPE provides an editorial workflow for suspected inappropriate image manipulation in published work in Inappropriate Image Manipulation in a Published Article.

Allegations involving authorship, conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, or peer-review manipulation will be assessed under the relevant MACC policies and the available evidence. The journal may seek clarification from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other relevant parties as appropriate. COPE's ethics toolkit identifies these matters as areas requiring documented journal procedures in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

If a credible allegation arises before publication, MACC may suspend editorial processing while it seeks clarification or supporting evidence. Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may request revisions, seek independent advice, refer the matter to the relevant institution, or reject the manuscript when the evidence and applicable editorial standards justify that decision. COPE describes steps for addressing suspected fabricated data before publication in Fabricated Data in a Submitted Manuscript.

MACC will base its editorial decision on the available evidence, the authors' response, and the seriousness of the identified problem. The journal will not treat an allegation alone as conclusive proof of misconduct. If the concern remains unresolved and materially affects confidence in the manuscript, the journal may decline publication while the matter is clarified. These procedures are consistent with COPE's guidance on handling suspected ethical breaches in Develop Guidelines for Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches.

When a credible allegation concerns an already published article, MACC will assess whether the issue affects the reliability, integrity, or ethical acceptability of the published record. The journal may request an explanation from the authors, seek supporting records, consult independent experts, and contact the relevant institution when necessary. COPE provides a process for handling suspected fabricated data in published work in Fabricated Data in a Published Article.

Depending on the findings and the extent of the problem, MACC may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction. The journal will select the action that best reflects the evidence and protects readers from relying on materially unreliable findings. COPE's Retraction Guidelines explain the circumstances and procedures for retracting articles and correcting the scholarly record.

MACC will ensure that any formal correction or retraction notice clearly identifies the affected article and explains the reason for the action to the extent supported by the evidence and permitted by applicable requirements. The journal will preserve the publication history and maintain an appropriate connection between the original article and the editorial notice. COPE's Retraction Guidelines provide recommendations for transparent retraction notices and the management of the published record.

MACC also accepts concerns about possible misconduct by editors, reviewers, or journal staff, including breaches of confidentiality, misuse of unpublished information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and irregularities in editorial processes. The journal will arrange an assessment by an appropriate person who is not directly implicated in the allegation and will seek independent advice where necessary. COPE recommends that journals establish procedures for addressing suspected ethical breaches involving authors, reviewers, editors, and other journal personnel in Develop Guidelines for Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches.

When an allegation concerns the editor-in-chief or another person with authority over the editorial process, MACC should assign the matter to an independent and suitably authorised individual or body to minimise conflicts of interest. The person responsible for the assessment should document the process and recommend appropriate action based on the available evidence. This arrangement implements COPE's recommendation that journals define responsibility for receiving allegations and handling ethical issues in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

MACC will maintain appropriate confidential records of allegations, relevant correspondence, evidence received, requests for clarification, institutional communications, and editorial decisions. Access to these records will be restricted to authorised individuals, and the journal will retain them in accordance with its applicable record-management and confidentiality procedures. COPE recommends documented processes for receiving, assessing, and responding to allegations in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

The journal will document the reasons for significant editorial actions so that it can explain its handling of the concern when appropriate. MACC will protect confidential information and will not publish allegations or investigation details unnecessarily. These procedures support the transparent and responsible management of publication ethics concerns described in COPE, Develop Guidelines for Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches.

When the assessment reaches a conclusion that can appropriately be communicated, MACC will inform the relevant parties of the editorial outcome, subject to confidentiality and applicable legal or institutional restrictions. The journal may communicate with an institution or research integrity office to request information relevant to the editorial record. COPE describes cooperation between journals and institutions in Cooperation Between Universities and Journals: Research Integrity.

MACC may close an allegation when the available evidence does not support further action, when the concern has been adequately resolved, or when an appropriate editorial response has been completed. The journal may reconsider a closed matter if substantial new evidence emerges. Where the reliability of a published article remains materially uncertain, the journal will consider an appropriate notice or corrective action under its publication ethics procedures. COPE's Retraction Guidelines provide guidance on editorial action when concerns affect confidence in a published article.

This policy operates alongside MACC's policies on authorship, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, peer review, research ethics, corrections, and retractions. When an allegation involves more than one issue, the journal may apply the relevant policies together and consult the corresponding COPE guidance. The journal's current publication policies are available on the official MACC Journal Policies page.

MACC will review this policy periodically and update it when necessary to reflect changes in publication ethics guidance, applicable requirements, and the journal's editorial procedures. COPE recommends that journals document clear and accessible processes for identifying and responding to ethical concerns in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns. Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Develop Guidelines for Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches. Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Cooperation Between Universities and Journals: Research Integrity.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Responding to Concerns Raised Directly. Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). When Institutions Are Contacted by Journals. Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Fabricated Data in a Submitted Manuscript. Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Fabricated Data in a Published Article. Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Plagiarism in a Submitted Manuscript. Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Plagiarism in a Published Article. Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines. Version 3, 2025.

Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC). Journal Policies.