1. Types of Publication Misconduct

Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following violations:

• Plagiarism: Presenting another person's data, text, or ideas as one's own without proper attribution.
• Data Fabrication or Falsification: Making up data or results, or manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes to misrepresent the community service outcomes.
• Redundant or Duplicate Publication: Submitting or publishing the same manuscript, or substantial portions of it, in multiple journals without cross-referencing.
• Unethical Authorship: Including individuals who did not contribute significantly (gift/honorary authorship) or omitting those who did (ghost authorship), or changing authorship without the consent of all co-authors.
• Undisclosed Conflict of Interest: Failing to declare financial, personal, or professional relationships that could inappropriately influence the work.

2. How to Report an Allegation

Any concerns regarding potential misconduct in a published or submitted manuscript should be reported directly to the Editor-in-Chief via the official journal email. To ensure a thorough investigation, the report must include:

• The title and authors of the manuscript in question.
• A clear, detailed, and objective description of the alleged misconduct.
• Concrete evidence supporting the claim (e.g., side-by-side text comparisons for plagiarism, links to previously published identical work, or proof of data manipulation). Mere suspicion or anonymous allegations without evidence will not be processed.

*The identity of the whistleblower will be kept strictly confidential throughout the investigation process, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

3. Investigation Process

Upon receiving a credible allegation, the Editorial Board will initiate a fair and objective investigation following these steps:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief will review the evidence to determine if the allegation warrants a formal investigation.
2. Notification and Right to Reply: The corresponding author of the manuscript will be formally notified of the allegation and given a specific timeframe (usually 14–21 days) to provide a detailed explanation and supporting evidence.
3. Expert Evaluation: If necessary, the journal may consult independent subject-matter experts or the author's affiliated institution to verify the claims.
4. Editorial Decision: Based on the gathered evidence and COPE flowcharts, the Editorial Board will make a final, binding decision.

4. Potential Sanctions and Outcomes

If misconduct is proven, the journal reserves the right to impose one or more of the following sanctions, depending on the severity of the violation:

• Rejection: Immediate rejection of the manuscript if the misconduct is discovered during the review process.
• Retraction: Formal retraction of the published article, accompanied by a public Retraction Notice explaining the reason, which will remain permanently linked to the original article.
• Expression of Concern: A temporary notice issued if an investigation is ongoing or if the evidence is inconclusive but raises serious doubts.
• Institutional Notification: Informing the author's affiliated university, research institution, or funding body about the ethical violation.
• Publication Ban: A temporary or permanent ban on the offending author(s) from submitting future manuscripts to JPM.

Important Note: JPM handles all misconduct cases with strict impartiality, confidentiality, and due process. The journal's primary goal is to correct the scholarly record and uphold the integrity of community service research, not to punish. All decisions made by the Editorial Board regarding misconduct are final.