(a) Suspected fabricated data in a received manuscript

• The reviewer reports his suspicion of fabricated data
• Thank the reviewer, ask for documentary evidence (if it is not yet available) and communicate your intention to investigate.
• Consider obtaining a second opinion from another reviewer
• Contact the author to explain concerns, but do not make direct accusations (Two alternatives)

1. The author responds

• Unsatisfactory response or admission of guilt
• Inform all authors that you will attempt to contact the centers and the regulated body
• author (s) ' centers and request an investigation (Three alternatives 1,2,3)

1. The author is acquitted

• Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer (s) of the result
  Continue, if appropriate, with the peer review
• Inform the reviewer of the result

1. The author is found guilty

• Reject the manuscript
• Inform the reviewer of the result

1. No response or unsatisfactory response

• Contact regulatory bodies and request an investigation
• satisfactory explanation
• Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer (s) of the result Continue, if appropriate, with the peer review

1. Does not respond

• Try to contact all the other authors (consult
  the metadata in the OJS platform to find their emails and write again. If they respond, the alternative with a response is resumed). If you don't respond then:
• Contact the center where the author works and request that your concern be transmitted to the author's superiors or the person responsible for research standards, in collaboration, if appropriate, with the co-authors' centers. If there is no response.
• Contact regulatory bodies and request an investigation (Two alternatives 1 and 2)

1. The author is acquitted, then:

• Apologize to the author, inform the reviewer (s) of the result and continue, if appropriate, with the peer review

1. The author is found guilty, then:

• Reject the manuscript

Inform the reviewer of the result