Plagiarism Policy

AIJOSH is committed to originality, academic integrity, and responsible scholarly communication. Plagiarism and the misrepresentation of another person’s contributions are unacceptable.

This policy explains how the journal screens manuscripts, evaluates suspected plagiarism, and addresses confirmed cases. Related concerns, including data fabrication, falsification, and manipulation of peer review, are handled under the journal’s Publication Ethics and Allegations of Misconduct policies.

1. Definition and Scope

Plagiarism involves presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, images, findings, or interpretations as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgment.

Examples include:

Copying text without clearly identifying it as a quotation and citing its source.
Closely paraphrasing a source while retaining its wording or structure without adequate attribution.
Combining passages from multiple sources to create apparently original text without acknowledging those sources.
Presenting another person’s ideas, interpretations, research findings, or analytical framework as an original contribution.
Reproducing figures, tables, images, or data without appropriate acknowledgment.
Translating another person’s work and presenting the translation as original scholarship without identifying the source.
Appropriating material from unpublished manuscripts, theses, research reports, or confidential communications.

Citation alone does not justify reproducing another source’s wording without quotation marks or appropriate block-quotation formatting.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are related but distinct concerns. Permission to reproduce material does not remove the obligation to acknowledge its source, and attribution does not replace permission where permission is required.

2. Text Recycling and Overlapping Publication

Reusing one’s own previously disseminated work requires transparency. Authors must cite relevant earlier publications and disclose substantial overlap in text, data, analysis, or findings.

Text recycling is assessed in context, including the amount reused, its location in the manuscript, the nature of the material, and whether the reuse is acknowledged. Limited overlap in standard methodological descriptions differs from presenting previously published results or conclusions as new.

Redundant or duplicate publication occurs when substantially the same work is published more than once without adequate disclosure, justification, or editorial agreement.

Prior dissemination as a preprint, thesis, dissertation, or conference abstract does not automatically constitute plagiarism or disqualify a submission. Authors must disclose the earlier version and explain the manuscript’s relationship to it, as required by the Author Guidelines.

3. Similarity Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo text-similarity screening before external peer review. Further screening may be conducted during revision, before publication, or when concerns arise.

The journal uses Turnitin or an equivalent text-similarity screening tool to identify potentially overlapping material. Screening reports support editorial assessment; they do not independently determine whether plagiarism has occurred.

The journal applies an overall similarity index of more than 25% as a trigger for additional scrutiny, not as an automatic finding of plagiarism or an automatic reason for rejection.

A similarity index of 25% or below does not establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. A short but substantively important passage, idea, image, or dataset may raise concerns regardless of the overall score.

The 25% threshold is an internal screening criterion, not a universal ethical standard or a permissible allowance for copied material.

4. Interpretation of Similarity Reports

Where supported by the screening tool, the journal excludes bibliographies and correctly formatted quotations from the numerical similarity calculation. Editors may inspect excluded material when necessary to assess attribution, excessive quotation, or other concerns.

Editorial assessment considers:

The extent and distribution of matched material.
Whether overlap is concentrated in a single source or spread across multiple sources.
Whether copied wording is clearly marked and appropriately cited.
Whether the overlap involves common terminology, standard descriptions, or substantive scholarly contributions.
Whether previously published findings are represented as new.
Whether the manuscript overlaps with a disclosed preprint, thesis, or other earlier version.

Software may fail to identify translated plagiarism, unattributed ideas, image reuse, or material outside its databases. Editorial judgment, reviewer observations, and documented reports from readers remain important.

Authors must not manipulate text or document formatting to evade similarity screening.

5. Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for the originality and accurate attribution of their submissions. They must:

Cite the sources of borrowed ideas, interpretations, data, and other material.
Clearly identify direct quotations and provide appropriate source locators.
Paraphrase accurately using their own wording and sentence structure while acknowledging the source.
Disclose relevant previous publications and overlapping submissions or materials.
Obtain permissions where required for third-party content.
Verify quotations and references against the sources cited.
Cooperate with reasonable editorial requests for clarification or supporting documentation.

Use of generative AI, translation software, paraphrasing tools, or third-party writing assistance does not remove these responsibilities. Rewording copied material solely to reduce a similarity score does not resolve an attribution or originality concern.

6. Handling Suspected Cases

Concerns may be identified by editors, reviewers, readers, authors, or screening tools.

The journal will assess the available evidence before reaching a conclusion. The process may include:

Identifying the passages, materials, and sources involved.
Comparing the manuscript or article with the relevant source material.
Requesting an explanation and supporting information from the authors.
Seeking independent advice where disciplinary expertise or impartial assessment is needed.
Consulting relevant institutions or other journals where the concern requires a broader investigation.

Authors will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Review or publication may be paused while a concern is examined.

Allegations will be handled confidentially as far as practicable. Information will be shared only with those who need it to assess or address the concern.

7. Action Before Publication

Editorial action depends on the nature, extent, and significance of the problem.

Limited attribution or quotation deficiencies may result in a request for correction and further assessment, provided that the manuscript’s originality and scholarly integrity remain intact.

Substantial plagiarism, appropriation of another person’s findings, or undisclosed duplicate publication may result in rejection. Serious or unresolved concerns may also be referred to the authors’ institutions or other appropriate bodies.

Authors will be informed of the decision and its basis. Submission of a corrected version does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Action After Publication

Concerns about published articles will be assessed under the journal’s procedures for correcting the scholarly record.

Possible actions include:

Correction: Where a limited attribution or quotation problem can be remedied without undermining the article’s overall integrity.
Expression of concern: Where a serious concern remains unresolved and readers need to be informed while an assessment or investigation continues.
Retraction: Where substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, or another serious breach makes continued presentation of the article as an original scholarly contribution inappropriate.

Relevant institutions or rights holders may be notified when warranted.

Any notice will explain the editorial action and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles will normally remain accessible with clear identification of their retracted status, subject to exceptional circumstances requiring removal.

Editorial action is intended to protect the scholarly record and inform readers. It does not depend solely on whether the authors agree with the outcome.

9. Reporting Concerns and Appeals

Suspected plagiarism should be reported through the journal’s official editorial contact channel. Reports should identify the manuscript or article, the relevant source, and the specific passages or materials involved. Supporting documents or links should be provided where available.

Authors may appeal a decision by presenting relevant evidence, identifying a material factual error, or explaining a procedural concern. Appeals will be considered under the journal’s Appeals and Complaints procedures and, where practicable, by an editor or adviser not responsible for the original decision.

10. Policy Review

The journal periodically reviews its screening procedures and responses to plagiarism to maintain consistency with its editorial policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy should be read together with the Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, Peer-Review Policy, Copyright Statement, and policies on Allegations of Misconduct and Corrections and Retraction.