Plagiarism Policy

RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Plagiarism and Similarity Policy

Similarity screening supports editorial judgment; it does not replace scholarly assessment of plagiarism.

Important distinction
A similarity percentage is not the same as a finding of plagiarism. Similarity tools identify textual matches; editors determine whether those matches reflect legitimate quotation, common terminology, methods language, preprints, author reuse, inadequate attribution, or plagiarism.

1. Definition and Scope

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person's words, ideas, structure, data, images, arguments, translations, or other intellectual work as one's own without adequate attribution, quotation, permission, or acknowledgement. The policy also covers unattributed translation, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, and misuse of third-party material.

  • Verbatim copying without quotation and citation.
  • Close paraphrasing or translated copying without attribution.
  • Using another person's ideas, analytical framework, data, images, tables, or figures without acknowledgement or permission where required.
  • Reusing substantial portions of an author's own previously published text without transparent citation or justification.
  • Submitting purchased, fabricated, ghostwritten, or otherwise misrepresented work as the author's own scholarly contribution.

2. Similarity Screening

FUADUNA screens submitted manuscripts using similarity-checking software such as Turnitin and/or iThenticate, subject to the tools available to the journal. The journal currently applies a 20% overall similarity threshold as an administrative screening reference, normally calculated after excluding the bibliography and, where appropriate, properly quoted material.

The 20% threshold is not an automatic declaration of plagiarism. A manuscript at or below 20% may still contain serious plagiarism concentrated in a specific source or section, while a manuscript above 20% may include legitimate overlap that requires editorial interpretation. Editors therefore examine the pattern, source concentration, location, and nature of matched text.

3. Editorial Classification of Findings

Finding Possible editorial response
Acceptable or explainable overlap Bibliographic entries, standard terminology, properly quoted text, unavoidable methods language, or transparently cited preprint/previous material. No misconduct finding; editorial cleaning may still be requested.
Minor attribution problem Limited unattributed phrasing or inadequate citation that does not undermine the originality of the work. Return for correction before further review.
Substantial overlap Extensive copied or closely paraphrased material, concentrated source matching, or inappropriate reuse that materially affects originality. The manuscript may be rejected and the author asked for an explanation.
Serious plagiarism or deceptive reuse Misappropriation of ideas/data, extensive unattributed copying, fabricated sources, concealed duplicate publication, or repeated deceptive conduct. Reject or, if published, consider correction/retraction and possible institutional notification after due assessment.

4. Screening Workflow

  1. The manuscript undergoes an initial similarity check before or during editorial screening.
  2. The editor examines the similarity report and relevant matched sources rather than relying on the percentage alone.
  3. Where clarification is needed, the corresponding author may be asked to explain the overlap and provide source documents, preprints, prior publications, permissions, or revised text.
  4. The editor decides whether the manuscript proceeds, is returned for revision, is rejected, or requires an integrity inquiry.
  5. If plagiarism is discovered after publication, the journal applies the Correction and Retraction Policy and relevant COPE guidance.

5. Author Responsibilities

  • Cite and quote sources accurately and consistently.
  • Disclose related manuscripts, preprints, conference papers, theses, datasets, translations, or previous publications when overlap may be relevant.
  • Obtain permission for copyrighted third-party material where required.
  • Do not manipulate similarity reports or deliberately disguise copied text through superficial paraphrasing, character substitution, or other evasion techniques.
  • Respond honestly and promptly to editorial questions about overlap or source use.

6. Post-Publication Cases

When credible evidence of plagiarism is received after publication, the journal will assess the scope and effect of the problem. Minor attribution errors may be addressed through correction when the article remains reliable. Substantial plagiarism, unauthorized use of data or material, or other serious integrity failures may justify retraction. Retraction notices will state the reason in factual language and preserve the bibliographic record whenever legally and ethically possible.

Related FUADUNA policies: Publication Ethics  |  Correction and Retraction  |  AI Policy