Journal Sport Science, Health and Tourism of Mandalika (JONTAK) is committed to protecting the integrity, credibility, and reliability of scholarly publications in sport science, physical education, health, recreation, tourism, and related fields. The journal takes seriously concerns about possible research or publication misconduct involving submitted manuscripts, published articles, and the conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, or other participants in the editorial process.

JONTAK handles allegations in a fair, evidence-based, confidential, and proportionate manner, guided by the core practices and relevant flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). An allegation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred.

1. Scope and Forms of Research Misconduct

Concerns may involve, but are not limited to, the following practices:

• Fabrication or falsification of research data, findings, images, research instruments, participant records, or other supporting evidence.
• Plagiarism, substantial unattributed use of others' work, redundant or duplicate publication, and undisclosed overlapping submissions.
• Inappropriate authorship practices, citation manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, or material misrepresentation of funding and research contributions.
• Manipulation of peer review, use of fictitious reviewer identities, unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts, or improper use of unpublished material.
• Failure to meet applicable ethical requirements for studies involving human participants, including informed consent, ethical approval, confidentiality, and protection of health or athlete information.
• Misleading alteration or presentation of evidence, including the use of artificial intelligence to fabricate research data, sources, or findings.

Honest errors, reasonable differences in scientific interpretation, and methodological disagreements are not automatically treated as research misconduct. Each concern is assessed according to its evidence, context, and potential effect on the scholarly record.

2. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research participants, institutions, and other parties may report suspected misconduct to the JONTAK editorial office using the official contact information provided on the journal website. Reports should identify the relevant manuscript or article and explain the concern as clearly as possible, with supporting documents, links, or other verifiable evidence where available.

The journal will consider allegations regardless of whether they arise before or after publication. Anonymous reports may be assessed when they contain sufficient specific information to permit a meaningful preliminary review. Individuals raising concerns in good faith will be treated respectfully, and their identities will be protected as far as reasonably possible under applicable obligations.

3. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, or an independent editor when a conflict of interest exists, conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation is relevant, sufficiently specific, and supported by information requiring further action. The editor may examine publicly available sources, similarity reports, manuscript files, editorial records, or other material already available to the journal.

A similarity score, an automated screening result, or an allegation alone is not conclusive evidence of misconduct. The editorial office must assess the underlying material and the circumstances. Editors should document the concern and preserve relevant records without attempting to replace an appropriate institutional investigation.

4. Author Response and Clarification

When a concern warrants further assessment, the editorial office will normally notify the individuals concerned in neutral, specific terms and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. Authors may be asked to explain discrepancies or provide relevant documentation, such as original data, image files, ethical approval information, research permissions, or evidence of authorship and consent, subject to legitimate confidentiality and privacy restrictions.

For a manuscript under consideration, the journal may temporarily suspend peer review or publication while a serious concern is assessed. A satisfactory explanation may allow the editorial process to continue, with appropriate corrections where necessary. An inadequate response or failure to respond may lead to further action, including referral to the relevant institution.

5. Institutional Investigation and Cooperation

Formal investigations into the conduct of researchers should generally be undertaken by their universities, employers, research institutions, or other competent research integrity bodies. JONTAK is responsible for evaluating the reliability of material it considers or publishes, but the journal does not replace institutional procedures for determining personal misconduct or imposing disciplinary sanctions.

When appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may refer documented concerns to an institution or relevant authority, cooperate with a legitimate investigation, and seek specialist advice. Communications will be limited to information necessary for responsible case handling. The journal may take editorial action to protect readers and the published record even when institutional findings are unavailable, provided the action is supported by the available evidence and applicable publication ethics guidance.

6. Editorial Actions Before and After Publication

For manuscripts that have not yet been published, appropriate outcomes may include a request for clarification or revision, continued consideration following resolution of the concern, rejection where warranted by the evidence, or referral to the relevant institution.

For published articles, the journal will select an action proportionate to the seriousness of the problem and its effect on the reliability of the work. Such actions may include:

• Correction: publishing a transparent correction when a specific error can be addressed without invalidating the main findings.
• Expression of Concern: alerting readers when credible, serious questions remain unresolved or an investigation is ongoing and the reliability of the article is uncertain.
• Retraction: retracting an article when reliable evidence shows that its findings or scholarly record are seriously compromised, including through major error or misconduct.

Any published correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice should explain the reason for the action accurately and be clearly linked to the original article. Retracted articles should ordinarily remain accessible and clearly identified as retracted, rather than being silently removed from the publication record.

7. Confidentiality, Impartiality, and Protection of Parties

All allegations will be handled with appropriate confidentiality. Relevant information will be shared only with those who need it for an impartial editorial assessment, institutional inquiry, or other legitimate process. Editors and reviewers with a competing interest in a case must recuse themselves, and the matter should be assigned to an independent person with suitable responsibility.

The journal will avoid premature conclusions, personal accusations, and unnecessary disclosure of a complainant's identity. Persons whose conduct is questioned will be given a fair opportunity to explain the facts. Legitimate concerns involving research participants, confidential health information, or safety will be referred through suitable channels when necessary.

8. Documentation, Communication, and Appeals

The editorial office will retain an appropriate record of the allegation, evidence reviewed, correspondence, decisions, and any corrective notices, subject to applicable confidentiality and record-management requirements. Complainants and affected parties may be informed of the outcome to the extent that confidentiality, privacy, and legal responsibilities permit.

A request to reconsider an editorial misconduct decision should be submitted in writing with a clear explanation and relevant new evidence or an identified procedural concern. Where feasible, the request will be reviewed by an editor or editorial representative who was not responsible for the original decision. The journal will periodically review this policy in light of current COPE guidance.