Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

The journal applies similarity checks to support research integrity, publication ethics, and responsible scholarship. Similarity screening is used to identify potential overlap and citation problems and to guide editorial assessment.
Integrity Screening Contextual Review Editorial Decision
Screening Tools
Primary Similarity Check
Similarity screening is conducted by the editorial office using CrossCheck (powered by iThenticate) where available as part of the journal’s integrity workflow.
Supplementary Screening
The journal may also use additional tools (e.g., Grammarly® Plagiarism Checker) to support preliminary checks and editorial evaluation.
What the Tools Do (and Do Not Do)
Similarity software detects text overlap; it does not determine plagiarism by itself. Editorial judgment is required to interpret the report in context.
How Similarity Reports Are Interpreted
Context Matters
  • Properly quoted and cited text may legitimately match prior sources.
  • Standard method descriptions may show overlap; however, excessive reuse without citation is not acceptable.
  • Reference lists and legally reused materials (with permission) may contribute to similarity.
What Editors Look For
  • Large continuous blocks of copied or lightly paraphrased text.
  • Unattributed reuse of prior publications, including an author’s own work (self-plagiarism/redundant overlap).
  • Inconsistent citation patterns or missing sources for key statements.
Similarity Percentage
The journal does not rely on a single numerical threshold. Similarity is assessed qualitatively, considering where overlap occurs (e.g., Introduction vs. Results), the nature of the matched sources, and whether reuse is appropriately cited and justified.
Note: Similarity reports are screening instruments. Editorial decisions consider the full context (quotations, references, common phrases, methodological conventions, and legitimate reuse) in addition to similarity percentages.
Screening Process and Possible Outcomes
Pre-Review Check
Submissions may be screened before peer review. If overlap appears problematic, authors may be asked to revise citations and text, provide clarifications, or explain prior dissemination (e.g., thesis, preprint, conference paper) where relevant.
During Peer Review
Reviewers may flag concerns about overlap, citation integrity, or originality. The editorial team may conduct additional checks and request author responses or revisions as part of ethical editorial practice.
Post-Publication Concerns
If credible concerns arise after publication, the journal will follow established ethics procedures, which may result in a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the severity and evidence.
Author Responsibilities
Originality and Citation
  • Submit original work and cite all sources appropriately.
  • Use quotation marks and citations for verbatim text.
  • Avoid excessive text recycling and ensure any reuse is disclosed and justified.
Disclosure of Prior Dissemination
Authors must disclose any prior dissemination of the work (e.g., preprints, theses/dissertations, conference proceedings, working papers) and ensure compliance with licensing and citation requirements.
Reminder: Plagiarism includes (i) copying without attribution, (ii) inappropriate paraphrasing without citation, and (iii) unacknowledged reuse of one’s own previously published text where disclosure is required.
Contact
Email (Editorial Office)
WhatsApp (Administrative Support)
Policy maintenance: The journal may refine screening practices as tools and community standards evolve, while maintaining consistent editorial principles.