-
Policy Title and Effective Date
Title: Plagiarism Policy for Researcher Authors of [Journal Name]
Effective Date: 2026-01-01
Version: 1.0
Approved by: Editor-in-Chief on behalf of the Editorial Board
-
Purpose and Scope
2.1 Purpose
This Policy establishes clear standards to prevent, detect, and address plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to [Journal Name], thereby safeguarding the integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.
2.2 Scope
a. This Policy applies to all researchers who are authors, co-authors, or contributors to manuscripts submitted to [Journal Name], including corresponding authors and contributors acknowledged for text, figures, data, code, or other content.
b. The Policy covers all stages of the editorial process (submission, peer review, acceptance, publication, and post-publication).
c. This Policy addresses plagiarism and text/figure/data/code recycling. Other forms of research misconduct (e.g., fabrication, falsification) are governed by separate policies; however, they may be handled in parallel if identified.
- Definitions and Conduct Classification
3.1 Plagiarism
The presentation of another person’s text, ideas, data, images, code, or creative expressions as one’s own without appropriate attribution, permission where required, and/or clear indication of reuse. Plagiarism may occur with or without intent and regardless of the medium or language.
3.2 Forms of Plagiarism (non-exhaustive)
a. Verbatim plagiarism: Copying text word-for-word without quotation marks and citation.
b. Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism: Mixing copied phrases or sentence structures with original text without adequate attribution.
c. Paraphrasing plagiarism: Close restatement of another’s work without proper citation.
d. Idea plagiarism: Presenting another’s original concepts, hypotheses, or interpretations as one’s own without attribution.
e. Translation plagiarism: Translating text from another source into a different language without attribution.
f. Self-plagiarism (text recycling): Reusing substantial portions of one’s previously published or submitted work without citation or transparency (including duplicate submission/publication).
g. Figure/table/image reuse: Reusing figures, tables, photographs, graphs, or schematics without permission (when required) and proper credit, including image cropping or relabeling that disguises origin.
h. Code plagiarism: Reusing software code, scripts, or algorithms without attribution or in violation of the license terms.
3.3 Related Concepts
a. Redundant/overlapping publication (“salami” publication): Segmenting one study into multiple overlapping manuscripts without appropriate cross-referencing and transparency. When it involves text or figure reuse without attribution, it falls under this Policy.
b. Common knowledge: Widely known facts and standard knowledge in a field that generally do not require citation.
c. Standardized methods: Limited reuse of boilerplate descriptions of established methods may be permissible with appropriate citation; extensive copying remains unacceptable.
3.4 Exceptions and Clarifications
a. Properly quoted and cited text, with quotation marks or block formatting, is not plagiarism.
b. Reuse of an author’s thesis content is allowed only with citation of the thesis and substantial rewriting; copyright permissions may be required depending on prior publication status.
c. Preprints: Reuse of text from an author’s own preprint must be cited and minimized; any reuse must be transparent.
d. Third-party content: Where permissions are required (e.g., figures under restricted licenses), authors must obtain and document permissions prior to acceptance.
- Detection Methods and Determination Procedures
4.1 Screening Methods
a. Editorial screening using similarity detection software to identify textual overlap.
b. Manual assessment by editors for context, proper citation, and quality of paraphrasing.
c. Image and figure screening using forensic tools or manual inspection for duplication or manipulation indicating unacknowledged reuse.
d. Code similarity checks for computational submissions.
e. Reports from peer reviewers, readers, or external parties.
4.2 Procedural Steps
a. Initial Assessment: On detection of potential plagiarism, the Handling Editor documents the evidence and conducts a preliminary review to determine whether concerns are credible.
b. Case Notification: The corresponding author is notified and asked to respond, typically within 10 business days. Co-authors may be copied when appropriate.
c. Temporary Hold: Editorial processing may be paused until the matter is resolved. Peer reviewer identities and communications remain confidential.
d. Evaluation Body: If concerns persist, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Integrity Committee conducts a fact-based evaluation of the materials, author responses, and relevant records.
e. Standard of Determination: Decisions are made on the preponderance of evidence, considering context, extent, and intent (where ascertainable).
f. Documentation: All findings, correspondence, and decisions are recorded and retained securely for auditability.
g. Post-Publication Cases: For published articles, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice according to the severity and reliability impact, with clear and accessible explanations.
4.3 Principles
a. Fairness and confidentiality throughout the process.
b. Timely resolution consistent with due process.
c. Decisions based on transparent criteria, not solely on similarity indices.
- Violation Levels and Sanctions (Three Tiers)
Note: Similarity percentages are indicative and must be interpreted contextually; the nature and location of overlap (e.g., Results vs. Methods) are critical.
5.1 Level 1: Minor Violation
Examples:
- Limited unattributed or poorly quoted text (e.g., small portions in Introduction/Methods), correctable through citation and rewriting.
- Incomplete citations or missing quotation marks affecting brief passages.
- Isolated, small figure elements reused without adequate credit, easily rectified.
Sanctions (one or more):
- Formal written warning and requirement to revise with proper attribution and paraphrasing.
- Mandatory author education (e.g., completion of an editorially approved integrity module).
- Additional similarity checks prior to acceptance.
- For published content: issuance of a corrigendum detailing corrections.
5.2 Level 2: Moderate Violation
Examples:
- Substantial unattributed overlap across multiple sections (e.g., Introduction and Discussion) or significant paraphrase too close to the source.
- Translation plagiarism or reuse of substantial text from prior works (including the author’s own) without transparent citation.
- Reuse of figures/tables or code without permission/attribution where the material is central to the work’s novelty.
- Repeated Level 1 issues within the same manuscript or across submissions.
Sanctions (one or more):
- Rejection of the manuscript or withdrawal requirement prior to further consideration.
- Submission embargo to [Journal Name] for 12–24 months for responsible author(s), subject to case specifics.
- Notification to the authors’ institutions or funders when warranted by extent or recurrence.
- For published content: correction if integrity remains intact; otherwise retraction if the overlap compromises originality or trust.
5.3 Level 3: Severe Violation
Examples:
- Wholesale copying of text, figures, or code; presenting another’s work/ideas as one’s own in core sections (Results/Conclusions).
- Duplicate publication of the same or near-identical manuscript across venues without disclosure.
- Systematic concealment of sources or permissions; coordinated plagiarism across multiple submissions.
Sanctions (one or more):
- Immediate rejection or withdrawal from publication pipeline.
- Retraction of published article with a transparent notice citing plagiarism as the reason.
- Submission embargo to [Journal Name] for 36–60 months for responsible author(s).
- Notification to the authors’ institutions, funders, and relevant indexing services or repositories, as appropriate.
- Ineligibility for editorial or reviewer roles at [Journal Name] during the embargo.
5.4 Allocation of Responsibility
a. All listed authors share responsibility for the integrity of the submission; however, sanctions may be tailored to individual responsibility when evidence supports differential involvement.
b. The corresponding author bears primary responsibility for ensuring originality checks, permissions, and full author awareness prior to submission.
- Appeal and Review Process
6.1 Right to Appeal
Authors may appeal decisions within 30 calendar days of notification by submitting a detailed written statement with supporting evidence.
6.2 Appeal Handling
a. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Appeal Panel not involved in the initial decision.
b. The Panel may seek independent expert advice and will consider procedural fairness and substantive evidence.
c. A decision will ordinarily be issued within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete appeal. The decision of the Appeal Panel is final for the journal.
6.3 Grounds for Appeal
a. Material procedural error affecting the outcome.
b. New, substantive evidence not previously available.
c. Demonstrable factual inaccuracies in the determination.
- Prevention Measures and Education Program
7.1 Author Declarations and Controls
a. Originality Statement: At submission, authors must affirm that the work is original, properly cited, and not under consideration elsewhere (except declared preprints).
b. Contribution and Funding Statements: Clear authorship contributions and disclosures support accountability.
c. Permissions: Authors must secure and document permissions for third-party material before acceptance.
d. AI-Assisted Tools: Use of automated writing or translation tools must be disclosed; authors remain fully responsible for originality and proper attribution. Undisclosed reuse produced by such tools is subject to this Policy.
7.2 Guidance and Training
a. Author resources: Style and citation guides, examples of acceptable paraphrasing, and checklists for figure/code reuse.
b. Webinars and workshops on responsible writing, citation practices, and similarity self-checks.
c. Reviewer and editor training on contextual assessment beyond similarity scores.
7.3 Editorial Safeguards
a. Routine similarity screening on initial submission and, where needed, on revised versions.
b. Targeted figure and code checks for high-risk content types.
c. Transparent communication templates for suspected cases and corrective actions.
d. Periodic audits of decisions to ensure consistency.
7.4 Continuous Improvement
a. Annual review of screening thresholds and procedures.
b. Biennial policy review with updates to reflect evolving standards and technologies.
c. Anonymous feedback mechanisms for authors, reviewers, and readers to report concerns.
- Final Provisions and Authority of Interpretation
8.1 Relationship with Other Policies
This Policy operates alongside the journal’s broader research integrity, authorship, peer review, data availability, and corrections/retractions policies.
8.2 Confidentiality and Data Protection
All reports, assessments, and decisions are handled confidentially and stored securely. The journal may disclose outcomes to relevant parties strictly as necessary to uphold research integrity.
8.3 Non-Retaliation
Good-faith reporters of suspected plagiarism will be protected from retaliation within the journal’s processes.
8.4 Effective Date and Transition
This Policy takes effect on the date stated above and applies to all new submissions and to post-publication cases identified after this date.
8.5 Interpretation and Enforcement
The Editor-in-Chief, advised by the Editorial Integrity Committee, holds the authority to interpret and enforce this Policy, including determining violation levels and sanctions and issuing public notices as required to maintain the scholarly record.
Appendix A: Illustrative Indicators by Level (Non-Exhaustive)
- Level 1: A paragraph in Methods closely mirrors a standard protocol without quotation but with a partial citation; a short caption reused from prior work without credit.
- Level 2: Several paragraphs across Introduction and Discussion paraphrase a review article too closely without attribution; a central figure reused without permission or credit; translated reuse of substantial text from a prior publication by the authors without disclosure.
- Level 3: Results and Conclusions substantially copied from a published article by other researchers; submission of a previously published article with minor cosmetic changes and no disclosure.
