Allegations of Research Misconduct

el-Noorda: Interdisciplinary Journal of Qur’an and Hadith considers credible allegations concerning submitted and published work. The purpose of this process is to establish the reliability of the research and protect the scholarly record through a fair, evidence-based assessment.

1. Scope of Concerns

Concerns may include:

• Fabrication or falsification of data, interviews, observations, sources, or findings.
• Plagiarism, unattributed translation, or substantial undisclosed redundant publication.
• Manipulation of citations, peer review, or authorship information.
• Misrepresentation of research ethics approval, consent, funding, or competing interests.
• Misleading alteration of images, documents, or other research evidence.
• Fabricated references, quotations, or attributions to religious and scholarly sources.

Honest errors and reasoned differences in interpretation are distinguished from misconduct, although errors may still require correction.

2. Submitting an Allegation

Reports should identify the article or manuscript, describe the specific concern, and supply relevant evidence or source comparisons. Anonymous reports may be assessed when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

3. Preliminary Assessment

An editor without a relevant competing interest will assess whether the allegation falls within the journal’s responsibilities and whether further examination is warranted. Submission or production may be paused where necessary to avoid publishing potentially unreliable work.

4. Author Response and Evidence

The journal will normally inform the author of the substance of the concern and request an explanation. Relevant supporting materials may be requested, such as source documents, analytical records, consent documentation, or research data, subject to legitimate confidentiality and participant-protection requirements.

5. Institutional Referral

Where a concern requires an investigation beyond the journal’s capacity, the editor may contact the relevant institution, employer, funder, or other responsible body. The journal assesses publication reliability; institutional investigations may be needed to determine individual conduct and responsibility.

6. Possible Outcomes

• Closure of the case where the concern is unsupported or satisfactorily resolved.
• A request for clarification or revision.
• Rejection of an unpublished manuscript.
• Publication of a correction or expression of concern.
• Retraction where the published work is seriously unreliable or affected by substantial ethical violations.

Actions will reflect the evidence, seriousness of the issue, and implications for readers. A withdrawal request does not automatically end an ongoing integrity assessment.

7. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Information will be shared only as needed to assess the case, obtain responses, or fulfil relevant obligations. The journal will seek to protect individuals who raise concerns in good faith, while recognizing that absolute confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed.

8. Appeals

Affected parties may request reconsideration by identifying a procedural error or providing relevant new evidence. Where possible, an editor who was not responsible for the original assessment will consider the appeal.