Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, and plagiarism at any stage of producing, conducting, reviewing, documenting, or reporting research. Where authors are implicated in misconduct, or where serious concerns arise about an article published in TEKNIKA, the editors are obliged to protect the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In handling allegations, the editors and editorial board follow the Core Practices and guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), so that complaints are resolved fairly and misconduct is addressed consistently. A manuscript found to involve misconduct will be rejected. Where a published article is found to involve misconduct, a retraction will be issued and linked to the original publication, where appropriate.

1. Initial Assessment. The editors first assess whether the complaint is well founded and whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct. They also consider whether the person raising the allegation has any conflict of interest in the matter.
2. Notice to the Authors. Where potential misconduct or a serious irregularity is identified, the allegation is put to the corresponding author, who is asked to provide a full response on behalf of all co-authors.
3. Further Evaluation. After the response is received and assessed, the editors may seek further evaluation, including advice from specialists such as statistical reviewers. Where misconduct appears unlikely, a clarification or supplementary analysis published as a letter to the editor, often together with a correction notice and an amendment to the original article, may be sufficient.
4. Institutional Investigation. Institutions are expected to investigate allegations of research misconduct thoroughly and impartially. Authors, journals, and institutions all bear responsibility for the accuracy of the scientific record.
5. Outcome. Depending on the findings, the journal may issue a correction, an expression of concern, a retraction with replacement, or a retraction. TEKNIKA is committed to taking appropriate action based on the assessment to maintain the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

An article published in TEKNIKA may be retracted where there is clear evidence of any of the following circumstances:

• The findings or data are unreliable, whether as a result of research misconduct, such as data fabrication or falsification, or of honest error, such as miscalculation or error in estimation.
• The findings have been published elsewhere without adequate cross-referencing, permission, or justification, constituting redundant publication.
• The article contains plagiarism or substantial duplication of the work of others.
• The reported research violates ethical standards, including the absence of required ethical approval or informed consent where applicable.
• The peer-review or editorial process has been manipulated or compromised.
• Significant undisclosed conflicts of interest are discovered that could materially affect the integrity or interpretation of the research.
• There is a serious breach of copyright or of other legal obligations related to the publication.

Decisions on retraction are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board, following a thorough, impartial, and documented review. Authors are informed of the concerns raised and given an opportunity to respond before a decision is made.

When an article is retracted, a formal retraction notice is published without delay and linked to the original publication. The original article remains available in the journal archive to preserve the scholarly record, but is prominently labelled and watermarked as "Retracted". The notice states the reasons for the retraction in factual and objective terms and identifies the party retracting the article, whether the authors, the Editor, or the Publisher.

Where the concern does not warrant full retraction, the journal may issue a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction with replacement, following the same process of notification and documented review. An expression of concern may be published where an investigation is inconclusive or still under way, and is replaced by a retraction or a resolution notice once the matter is settled.