Plagiarism Detection Policy

Contextual assessment of textual overlap

Editors check textual overlap before peer review and may repeat checks after material revisions. Similarity detection is not automatic proof of plagiarism. Reports are interpreted in light of sources, attribution, concentration, extent, context and intellectual role of the matching passages.

No automatic similarity percentage determines acceptance or rejection. Unattributed copying in results or conclusions may require investigation even if overall overlap is low; properly attributed quotations, standardized methods, authorized surveys and clearly disclosed preprints may account for legitimate matches.

Questionable practices and editorial response

Possible misconduct includes textual or idea plagiarism, unattributed translations, duplicate findings, substantial undisclosed text recycling, unauthorized reuse of figures or instruments and salami-slicing designed to feign novelty. Editors preserve reports, identify material matches, invite explanations and record reasoned outcomes: clarification, revision, rejection or post-publication investigation, as warranted.

Concerns about published articles are governed by the corrections and retractions policy; case records remain confidential and affected parties have an opportunity to respond.

Qualitative assessment of text overlap

Public institutional documents, validated questionnaires, preregistered protocols, standardized methods and deposited preprints may generate legitimate matches. Editors assess attribution, rights, extent, location and intellectual function before alleging misconduct; a short copied conclusion may be more serious than extensive correctly attributed methods overlap.

Editorial decisions are not determined by automated percentage bands or supposed Scopus similarity thresholds. Substantiated concerns trigger a request for explanation, independent examination when warranted and a reasoned outcome; similarity reports and correspondence remain access-restricted.

Sequence for investigating overlap

The editor isolates the passages in question, locates the original source and compares the works in context, including tables, images, hypotheses and conclusions. Where reasonable concerns remain, authors receive the specific passages and are asked for provenance, permissions or an explanation. If the response is inadequate, independent advice may be sought before deciding on pre-review correction, reasoned rejection or post-publication action. An automated report alone is not conclusive proof.

Work derived from theses, repositories and preprints

An earlier dissertation, working paper or preprint is not automatically improper duplication. Authors identify these versions, explain what the article adds and confirm publishing rights. When several papers use the same research project, the submission identifies overlapping questions, participants, data and analyses so that the editor can assess whether the contribution is genuinely distinct.

Examination of instruments and data reuse

Reuse of scales, questionnaires and rubrics in university research requires distinguishing attribution to the original instrument, reproduction permission or license, and suitability for the study sample. Publicly available questionnaires are not necessarily free to copy or modify. If the concern undermines results, the journal may request evidence of provenance and the instrument version used, and may consult specialists or rights holders before reaching a decision.

Fair process in suspected plagiarism

Authors receive the passages and evidence at issue and an opportunity to provide explanations and supporting materials before any finding of misconduct. The assessment distinguishes repairable citation errors, transparent reuse, unauthorized reproduction and substantial misappropriation. Similarity software is not used as an automatic sanctioning mechanism; post-publication retraction follows the journal’s dedicated scholarly-record procedure.