Academic Misconduct Policy

Early Years Research Association of Singapore (a.k.a the Association) takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously and will take all necessary actions to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. Academic misconduct may result in retraction and withdrawal of published article. Below are the examples of misconduct.

1.  Plagiarism

Plagiarism applies to data, images, words or ideas taken from any materials in electronic or print formats without sufficient attribution. This can include abstracts, seminar presentations, laboratory reports, thesis or dissertation, research proposals, computer programs, online posts, grey literature and unpublished or published manuscripts. The use of any such material, either directly or indirectly should be properly acknowledged in all instances and the source of content must always be cited.
Text-recycling/ self-plagiarism. Although authors are expected to refer to their own previously published work, in some cases re-using large proportions is considered to be unacceptable. Where this is unavoidable, authors must be transparent about their previously published work by providing appropriate citations. Authors must also ensure that reuse is compliant with copyright policies.

2.  Authorship

Authors are required to give an honest account of authorship, where each listed author meets the authorship criteria, in order to provide transparency and credit to those who have substantially contributed to the work.

However, where authors deliberately do not comply, this is considered to be a form of misconduct. Of particular concern are:

  • ‘Ghost authorship’ – where an author(s) has substantially contributed to the work but has not been given credit. This also impacts transparency, as any competing interests pertaining to a ‘ghost author’ will not be declared.
  • ‘Gift authorship’– where a listed author(s) has not contributed substantially, or at all to the published work.
  • ‘Authorship for sale’– where authors have ‘sold’ an author spot on a paper, or where a researcher has ‘bought’ an authorship spot on a paper.


3.  Affiliation Misrepresentation

Affiliations must be an accurate reflection of where the study was approved and/or supported and/or conducted. For non-research articles, the affiliation should be listed as the place the author(s) was based at the time of submission.

4.  Undisclosed Competing Interests

Where authors and reviewers do not declare relevant competing interests, which can be perceived to influence their opinion of or assessment of a research or other type of scholarly article.

Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves from any kind of involvement with submissions they have a significant competing interest against. The nature of which is likely to influence their ability to provide a fair and balanced assessment.

5.  Image or Data Manipulation/ Fabrication

Where deliberate action has been taken to inappropriately manipulate or fabricate images or data. This is a serious form of misconduct as it is designed to mislead others and damages the integrity of the scholarly record with wide-reaching impact and long-term consequences.

6.  Duplicate Submission/ Publication

Authors are required to declare upon submission that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere, and as such the detection of a duplicate submission or publication is typically considered to be a deliberate act.

Authors who wish to submit secondary publications (e.g., an article translated into English), must seek permission from the publisher and copyright holder of the original article, and must inform the Editor of the receiving journal about the history of the original article. 

Authors of secondary publications which have been translated into English must make it clear to readers that the article is a translated version and must include a citation to the original article.

7.  Peer Review Compromised

Where authors or agencies submitting on behalf of authors take deliberate steps to influence the peer review process in their favor, or where editors make decisions based on biased peer review reports.

Where there is evidence to suggest that the integrity of the peer review process has been compromised, necessary action will be taken to correct the scholarly record.

8.  Citation Manipulation

Where authors excessively and inappropriately self-cite or enter into pre-arrangements among author groups to inappropriately cite each other’s work or where editors or reviewers coerce authors to cite papers from their own previously published papers, or from specific journals, without due justification as to why those papers are necessary to cite.

9.  Unethical research

Where research outside the approved ethics protocols has been conducted. For example, where necessary permissions have not been obtained, or where researchers have not taken sufficient steps to protect the safety and privacy of human subjects, or the inadequate welfare of animals used in the research, or where specimens (e.g., fossils, archaeological specimens, human tissues, etc.) have not been ethically sourced.

10.  “Ethics dumping”

Where researchers leading a study deliberately set up collaborations in regions where participant recruitment and process for ethical approval are designed with the intention of circumventing international standards of research ethics.

11.  Breaches in Copyright

Where authors have included material, which is under copyright and have not obtained the appropriate permissions as instructed by the copyright holders.

12.  Harassment

Sexual and other types of identity-based harassment, discrimination, and exclusionary behaviors have been identified as barriers to diversifying science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields. By creating hostile environments, disrupting career progression, and sowing distrust, these behaviors affect the integrity of scientific and medical practice. The Association treats harassment and other hostile behaviors with at least the same level of concern as data fabrication, falsification.

Possible Dealings and Outcome of Misconduct

The Chief Editor shall consult the Editorial Board, and, when necessary, additional experts. They shall make a decision about the further course of action based upon the available evidence. The possible outcomes might be as per below.

• Publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct.
• Informing the author’s (or reviewer’s) head of department or employer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter.
• The formal retraction of publications from the journal in accordance with the Correction and Retraction Policy.
• A ban from submissions in JEYR for a predefined period.
• Referring a case to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.

All rights reserved © 2024. Early Years Research Association of Singapore.