Ethics Flowcharts and Editorial Procedures

Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Social Sciences is committed to protecting the integrity, reliability and transparency of the scholarly record. All publication ethics concerns are handled fairly, independently, confidentially, on an evidence-based footing, and in proportion to the severity of the case.

These procedures apply to manuscripts under submission, under review, accepted, and published, and to all related content, data, images, and supplementary materials.

1. GENERAL PROCESSING PROCEDURE

1.1. Detection or receipt of an ethics concern

1.2. Recording and preserving the record, evidence and processing history in OJS

1.3. Checking the conflicts of interest of those involved in handling the case

1.4. Preliminary assessment of the severity and credibility of the concern

• Insufficient grounds: Close the case, record the reason, and continue the editorial process where appropriate;
• Reasonable grounds: Suspend processing of the manuscript or the publication decision where necessary.

1.5. Notify the author or relevant party and request an explanation, raw data, or supporting documentation.

1.6. Consult subject-matter editors, methodology, statistical, or ethics advisors, or the research institution, as needed

1.7. Decision

1.7.1. Before publication

• • Continue processing;
  • Request revisions;
  • Request re-review;
  • Reject the manuscript;
  • Notify the research institution or the relevant authority.

1.7.2. After publication

• • Take no further action;
  • Correction;
  • Expression of Concern;
  • Retraction;
  • Remove the article in exceptional legal or safety circumstances;
  • Notify the research institution, funder, publisher, or indexing service.

1.8. Communicate the decision, update the website, DOI and metadata, and archive the case file

2. PLAGIARISM AND SIMILARITY

Plagiarism is the use of another person's words, ideas, data, tables, figures, methods, argument structure, or other intellectual output without appropriate attribution, in a way that misleads the reader into believing it is the author's own work.

A similarity report is a screening tool only; a similarity percentage does not automatically equate to plagiarism. Editors must assess the source, context, citation practice, location of the overlapping content, and its impact on originality.

2.1. Overall similarity index

2.2. Overlap with an individual source

2.3. Consecutive verbatim copying

• 20 or more consecutive words without citation: a sign requiring an explanation;
• 40 or more consecutive words without citation: a serious sign;
• Multiple, systematically repeated copied passages may be regarded as serious plagiarism even where the overall percentage is low.

2.4. Processing procedure

2.4.1. Similarity detected

2.4.2. Manual review of the report and the matched sources

• • Minor issue: Require the addition of a citation, quotation marks, or rewording;
  • Substantial overlap: Suspend processing and require an explanation from the author.

If the manuscript is found to involve serious plagiarism

• Reject the manuscript;
• Retract the article if already published;
• Notify the research institution where appropriate;
• Consider submission restrictions for serious or repeated conduct.

3. SELF-PLAGIARISM AND TEXT RECYCLING

Self-plagiarism is the substantial reuse of an author's own previously published content without citation, disclosure, or the creation of appropriate new scholarly value.

Limited reuse within a methods section may be acceptable where necessary, properly cited, and where it does not mislead the reader as to the originality of the research.

4. FABRICATION, FALSIFICATION AND IMAGE MANIPULATION

Prohibited conduct includes:

• Creating data, participants, results, or materials that do not exist;
• Altering, omitting, or selecting data in order to distort results;
• Being unable to provide the underlying data on reasonable request;
• Duplicating, splicing, deleting, obscuring, or editing images in a way that changes their scientific meaning;
• Using AI-generated images or data as if they were genuine research data.

4.1. Anomaly detected

4.2. Request the raw data, analysis code, original image files, or research records

4.3. Assessment by an appropriate expert

• No misconduct found: continue processing;
• Remediable error: request a correction;
• Unreliable data: reject, Expression of Concern, or Retraction;
• Evidence of fraud: notify the research institution or the relevant authority.

5. SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSION, DUPLICATE PUBLICATION AND SALAMI SLICING

Authors must not:

• Submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time;
• Republish all or a substantial part of previously published content without disclosure;
• Split a single study into multiple articles that lack an independent question or contribution;
• Conceal a related conference paper, preprint, report, or manuscript.

5.1. Detected

5.2. Verify with the author and the relevant journal(s) as needed

• Require merging of the articles or proper citation;
• Reject the manuscript;
• Retract the article if already published;
• Notify the relevant journals or research institution in serious cases.

6. AUTHORSHIP AND CONTRIBUTORSHIP MISCONDUCT

Unacceptable conduct includes:

• Honorary or gift authorship;
• Ghost authorship;
• Buying or selling authorship positions;
• Misrepresenting identity or institutional affiliation;
• Excluding a person who qualifies as an author;
• Misstating CRediT roles;
• Unilaterally adding, removing, or reordering authors.

6.1. Dispute or request for an authorship change received

6.2. Suspend processing

6.3. Require an explanation, a contribution statement, and written confirmation from all authors

• Parties reach agreement: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the decision according to the manuscript's processing stage;
• Parties do not reach agreement: Refer the matter to the research institution or the relevant authority. The journal does not itself adjudicate authorship disputes of a legal nature.

7. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Authors, reviewers, and editors must fully disclose any financial, professional, academic, personal, or organizational interests that could affect the research or the editorial decision.

7.1. Undisclosed conflict of interest detected

7.2. Require an explanation

• Update the disclosure statement;
• Replace the reviewer or editor;
• Reassess the decision;
• Publish a Correction;
• Reject or retract the article if the conflict of interest seriously undermines the reliability of the research or the editorial process.

A person with a conflict of interest may not take part in handling or deciding the case.

8. RESEARCH ETHICS MISCONDUCT

Concerns may relate to:

• Lack of ethics committee approval;
• Absence of informed consent to participate or to publish;
• Violations of privacy and personal data protection;
• Inappropriate research involving humans or animals;
• Falsified ethics approval;
• Misstated trial registration or data sources.

8.1. Suspicion detected

8.2. Request the approval decision, consent forms, and related records

8.3. Verify with the ethics authority as needed

• Records are valid: continue;
• Remediable gaps: request supplementary documentation;
• No approval or fraudulent disclosure: reject;
• If already published: Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction.

9. CITATION MANIPULATION

Prohibited conduct includes:

• Coercing authors to cite irrelevant references;
• Excessive self-citation or excessive citation of the journal;
• Citation rings or networks;
• Reciprocal citation arrangements;
• Inserting references solely to inflate citation metrics;
• Using fabricated or AI-generated references.

9.1. Unusual citation pattern detected

9.2. Assess the relevance and revision history of the references

9.3. Check the reviewer's or editor's requests

• Remove inappropriate citations;
• Replace the reviewer or editor;
• Reassess the decision;
• Reject the manuscript;
• Review related articles;
• Terminate the reviewer's or editor's role in cases of systematic manipulation.

10. PEER REVIEW MANIPULATION

Prohibited conduct includes:

• Suggesting reviewers who do not exist;
• Using fake email addresses or addresses controlled by the author;
• Impersonating or stealing an identity;
• Organizing reviewer rings that exchange favorable reviews;
• Authors reviewing their own manuscript;
• Having someone else conduct the review without disclosure;
• Using AI to generate a review report or uploading a confidential manuscript to an unauthorized AI tool.

10.1. Suspicious reviewer or report detected

10.2. Suspend the editorial decision

10.3. Verify identity, email address, institutional affiliation, and OJS history

• Void the invalid review report;
• Invite a new, independent reviewer;
• Reassess or void the decision;
• Reject the manuscript;
• Lock the fraudulent account;
• Retract the article if the review process was seriously manipulated.

11. AI MISUSE

Unacceptable conduct includes:

• Generating fabricated data, results, or references;
• Generating or editing images in a way that alters data;
• Failing to disclose AI use where policy requires it;
• Using AI to replace the author's scholarly responsibility;
• Entering a confidential manuscript or personal data into an unauthorized AI tool;
• Using AI to generate a review report.

The journal does not conclude misconduct on the basis of an AI-detection tool alone.

11.1. Suspicion detected

11.2. Manual assessment and request for the original records

• Add the required disclosure;
• Correct the content or references;
• Reject the manuscript;
• Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction if the published content is unreliable.

12. PAPER MILLS AND ARTICLE TRADING

Possible warning signs include:

• Manuscripts following a repetitive template;
• Reused data or images;
• Authors who do not understand the research content;
• Unusual authorship changes;
• Fake reviewers;
• Fabricated references;
• Evidence of buying or selling an article or an authorship position.

A single indicator alone is not sufficient to reach a conclusion.

12.1. Multiple linked indicators detected

12.2. Suspend processing

12.3. Verify the authors, data, images, review, and research process

• Insufficient grounds: continue with enhanced review;
• Authenticity cannot be verified: reject;
• Evidence of fraud: reject or retract;
• Review related articles;
• Notify the research institution or the relevant authority.

13. EDITORIAL MISCONDUCT

Possible conduct includes:

• Bias or abuse of authority;
• Coercive citation;
• Disclosing a confidential manuscript;
• Appropriating ideas or data;
• Improper interference with the review process;
• Failing to disclose a conflict of interest;
• Giving preferential treatment to articles from internal members.

Where a complaint concerns an editor, the case must be referred to a higher authority or an independent group. The person complained against may not take part in the decision.

Outcomes may include:

• Transferring the manuscript to another editor;
• Reassessing the decision;
• Training or a warning;
• Suspending or terminating the editorial role;
• Correction or Retraction;
• Notifying the governing body.

14. CORRECTION

A Correction is published when an error affects the accuracy or interpretability of the article but does not invalidate its overall results and conclusions.

A Correction notice must:

• Identify the article and its DOI;
• Specify the incorrect content and the correct content;
• Explain the impact of the error;
• Be bidirectionally linked to the original article;
• Maintain a transparent publication history.

15. EXPRESSION OF CONCERN

An Expression of Concern may be published when:

• There is a serious concern that is not yet sufficient grounds for retraction;
• An investigation is prolonged;
• The author or research institution is uncooperative;
• There is a risk to readers or the community.

The notice is linked to the original article and is updated once the investigation concludes.

16. RETRACTION

An article may be retracted when:

• Its results or conclusions are no longer reliable;
• There is serious plagiarism;
• There is fabrication or falsification of data;
• There is a serious research ethics violation;
• There is manipulation of authorship, review, or citations;
• The article is a paper-mill product;
• There is serious duplicate publication;
• There is an unremediable copyright infringement.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record, not to punish the author.

A Retraction notice must:

• Identify the retracted article;
• State the reason;
• Identify the deciding party;
• Be linked to the original article;
• Be published promptly and transparently.

A retracted article is generally kept on the website, marked “RETRACTED.”

17. COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

A complaint or appeal must clearly state:

• A factual error;
• A procedural violation;
• A conflict of interest;
• New evidence that could affect the decision.

The case is referred to a person who was not involved in the original decision.

Outcomes may include:

• Upholding the decision;
• Amending the decision;
• A new independent review;
• Remedying a procedural error;
• Referral to the Editorial Council or the relevant authority.

18. ETHICS HANDLING FOR SPECIAL ISSUES

Applies to special issues, thematic collections, topic-based article collections, or academic collaborations involving guest editors. Risks to be controlled include:

• Guest editors with a conflict of interest;
• Non-transparent invitation of contributions;
• Non-independent peer review;
• Concentration of articles from the same author group or institution;
• Peer review manipulation or citation manipulation;
• Topics outside the scope of the Journal;
• Uneven article quality;
• Using a special issue to bypass the standard review process.

18.1. Special issue proposal: must state the topic, objectives, scope, guest editors, and review plan
18.2. Approval: the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Council reviews and approves the proposal before publication
18.3. Conflict-of-interest disclosure: all guest editors must disclose any conflicts of interest
18.4. Double-blind peer review: articles in the special issue must go through the same review process as regular articles
18.5. Independent oversight: the Journal reserves the right to assign an internal editor to oversee the entire special issue
18.6. Handling violations: if misconduct is found, the Journal may suspend the special issue, replace the guest editor, order a new review, reject articles, or cancel the special issue
18.7. Transparent disclosure: information about the special issue, the guest editors, and the review process must be clearly published

19. REMEDIAL MEASURES

Depending on severity, the journal may apply:

• A reminder or warning;
• A request for correction or an additional disclosure;
• A request for re-review;
• Replacement of the reviewer or editor;
• Voiding of a review report;
• Rejection of the manuscript;
• Publication of a Correction;
• Publication of an Expression of Concern;
• Retraction;
• Locking of a fraudulent account;
• Submission restrictions;
• Termination of a reviewer's or editor's role;
• Notification of the research institution, funder, or relevant authority.

Every measure must be based on a specific assessment and must never be applied automatically on the basis of a similarity percentage or a technical tool alone.

20. REFERENCE PROCESSING TIMELINE

Complex cases may take longer. The journal must record the reason for any extension.

21. ENFORCEMENT STATEMENT

The journal handles every ethics concern independently, fairly, confidentially, consistently, and on an evidence-based footing.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties are responsible for cooperating, providing truthful information, and preserving records. Failure to cooperate, providing misleading information, destroying evidence, or obstructing the verification process may be taken into account when the journal reaches its decision.

The journal reserves the right to update these procedures to remain consistent with applicable law, ethical standards, and current international scholarly publishing practice.