EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS (EXCEPTIONAL PROCEDURES)

These procedures are of an exceptional nature, but they may occur. Below is the step-by-step process of how the journal will handle each exceptional case:

1. What the journal will do if it suspects redundant (duplicated) publication in a submitted manuscript:

2. What the journal will do if it suspects redundant (duplicated) publication in a published manuscript:

3. What the journal will do if it suspects academic plagiarism in submitted manuscripts:

4. What the journal will do if it suspects plagiarism in a published manuscript:

5. What the journal will do if it suspects fabricated (non-real) data in a submitted manuscript:

6. What the journal will do if it suspects fabricated data in published articles:

7. Changes in authorship: The corresponding author requests the addition/removal of an extra author before publication:

8. Changes in authorship: Request for the addition/removal of an extra author after publication

(SITUATION 1) - What the journal will do if it suspects redundant (duplicate) publication: Suspicion of redundant publication in a submitted manuscript

1. Reviewer reports an irregularity.
2. Thank the reviewer and inform them that the issue will be investigated. Editors will search for and obtain complete documentary evidence, if not already provided.
3. Verify whether the proposed irregularities truly exist:
   • If no irregularity is found:
     • Notify the reviewers that no irregularity was detected.
   • If there is a minor irregularity:
     • Inform the author of the irregularity and request the removal or modification of the overlapping content.
     • Notify the reviewer and continue with the evaluation (as long as the authors make the required changes).
   • If an irregularity is found:
     • Negative scenario:
       • Notify the author of the irregularity regarding duplicate publication in the submitted manuscript.
       • If the author does not respond, send another letter highlighting the irregularity. If the author still fails to respond, reject the article and inform the reviewer.
     • Positive scenario:
       • Notify the author of the irregularity regarding duplicate publication in the submitted manuscript.
       • If the author acknowledges the irregularity, inform them that the manuscript will be rejected but may be resubmitted after modification.
     • Notify the reviewer about the decision and the process developments.

(SITUATION 2) - What the journal will do if it suspects redundant (duplicate) publication: Suspicion of redundant publication in a published manuscript

1. A reader reports potential duplication.
2. Thank the reader and inform them that the issue will be investigated. Editors will search for and obtain complete documentary evidence, if not already provided.
3. Verify whether the proposed irregularities truly exist:
   • If no irregularity is found:
     • Notify the reader that no irregularity was detected.
   • If an irregularity is found:
     • Notify the author of the redundant publication in the published manuscript.
     • If the author does not respond, the journal will reinforce the author's responsibilities and ethical obligations.
     • If the author responds, inform them about the misconduct and emphasize that the journal will not tolerate similar issues from the author as a first or co-author in the future.

(SITUATION 3) - What the journal will do if it suspects academic plagiarism in submitted works: Suspicion of plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

1. Reviewer reports an irregularity related to plagiarism.
2. Thank the reviewer and inform them that the issue will be investigated. Editors will search for and obtain complete documentary evidence, if not already provided.
3. Verify whether the proposed irregularities truly exist:
   • If no irregularity is found:
     • Notify the reviewers that no irregularity was detected.
   • If there is a minor irregularity:
     • Inform the author of the irregularity and request the removal or modification of the plagiarized content.
     • Notify the reviewer and continue with the evaluation (as long as the authors make the required changes).
   • If an irregularity is found:
     • Notify the author of the plagiarism-related irregularity.
     • Reject the manuscript.

(SITUATION 4) - What the journal will do if it suspects plagiarism in published manuscripts: Suspicion of plagiarism in a published manuscript

1. A reader reports an irregularity related to plagiarism.
2. Thank the reader and inform them that the issue will be investigated. Editors will search for and obtain complete documentary evidence, if not already provided.
3. Verify whether the proposed irregularities truly exist:
   • If no irregularity is found:
     • Notify the reader that no irregularity was detected.
   • If there is a minor irregularity:
     • Inform the author of the irregularity and request the removal or modification of the plagiarized content.
     • Notify other readers about the plagiarism issue, retract the plagiarized version, and replace it with a corrected version.
   • If an irregularity is found:
     • Negative scenario:
       • Notify the author of the plagiarism-related irregularity in the published work.
       • If the author does not respond, send another letter highlighting the irregularity. If the author still fails to respond, retract the article and inform readers about the misconduct and the process developments.
     • Positive scenario:
       • Notify the author of the plagiarism-related irregularity in the publication.
       • If the author acknowledges the irregularity, inform them that the manuscript will be retracted but may be resubmitted after modification.
     • Notify readers about the decision and the process developments.

(SITUATION 5) - What the journal will do if it suspects fabricated (non-real) data: Suspicion of fabricated data in a submitted manuscript

1. A reviewer suspects and reports an irregularity related to the data.
2. Request the opinion of a second reviewer in the same field.
3. Thank the reviewers and inform them that the issue will be investigated. Editors will search for and obtain complete documentary evidence, if not already provided.
4. Verify whether the proposed irregularities truly exist:
   • If no irregularity is found:
     • Notify the reviewers that no irregularity was detected and recommend continuing with the manuscript.
   • If there is a minor irregularity:
     • Inform the author of the irregularity and request clarifications, along with the removal or modification of the problematic data.
     • Notify the reviewers about the inappropriate data and the steps being taken to resolve the issue.
   • If an irregularity is found:
     • Negative scenario:
       • Notify the author of the irregularity regarding fabricated data in the submitted manuscript.
       • If the author does not respond, send another letter highlighting the irregularity. If the author still fails to respond, reject the manuscript and inform the reviewers about the misconduct and the process developments.
     • Positive scenario:
       • Notify the author of the irregularity regarding fabricated data in the submitted manuscript.
       • If the author acknowledges the irregularity, inform them that the manuscript will be rejected but may be resubmitted after modification with real data.
     • Notify the reviewers about the decision and the process developments.

(SITUATION 6) - What the journal will do if it suspects fabricated data in published manuscripts: Suspicion of fabricated data in a published manuscript

1. A reader suspects and reports an irregularity related to the data.
2. Request the opinion of a second reader in the same field.
3. Thank the readers and inform them that the issue will be investigated. Editors will search for and obtain complete documentary evidence, if not already provided.
4. Verify whether the proposed irregularities truly exist:
   • If no irregularity is found:
     • Notify the readers that no irregularity was detected and retain the published article.
   • If there is a minor irregularity:
     • Inform the author of the irregularity and request clarifications, along with the removal or modification of the problematic data.
     • Notify the readers about the inappropriate data and the steps being taken to resolve the issue. A clarification note will be published.
   • If an irregularity is found:
     • Negative scenario:
       • Notify the author of the irregularity regarding fabricated data in the published manuscript.
       • If the author does not respond, send another letter highlighting the irregularity. If the author still fails to respond, retract the article and inform readers about the misconduct and the process developments. A clarification note will be published to communicate this decision.
     • Positive scenario:
       • Notify the author of the irregularity regarding fabricated data in the published manuscript.
       • If the author acknowledges the irregularity, inform them that the manuscript will be retracted but may be resubmitted after modification with real data.
     • Notify the readers about the decision and the process developments through a clarification note.

(SITUATION 7) - Changes in authorship: Corresponding author requests the addition/removal of an author before publication

1. The author requests the removal or addition of an author in the manuscript.
2. The editor will request a justification for the requested change.
3. After receiving the justification, the editor will decide whether to approve the change. However, only removal requests can be executed. For the addition of a new author, the manuscript will be rejected.
4. The reviewers and authors of the manuscript will be informed of the decision.

(SITUATION 8) - Changes in authorship: Request for the addition/removal of an author after publication

1. The author requests the removal or addition of an author in the manuscript.
2. The editor will request a justification for the requested change.
3. After receiving the justification, the editor will decide whether to approve the change. However, only removal requests can be executed. For the addition of a new author, the manuscript will be rejected.
   • If there is an appeal from the authors regarding inclusion or removal:
     • The manuscript will be categorized under Situation 6 (see above) about irregularities in data submitted to the journal.

Note:
The points listed above align with the good practices policy from COPE. This document is a modified and translated version of COPE's recommendations (see link: https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20flowcharts.pdf).