Plagiarism Policy

Description

Jurnal Fisika Unand (JFU) is committed to publishing original, accurately attributed, transparently reported, and responsibly disseminated scholarly work.

This policy defines plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, and improper reuse of data, images, tables, figures, equations, software, code, methods, or other scholarly material. It also explains how similarity reports and related originality concerns are assessed before and after publication.

This policy applies to:

1. manuscripts submitted to JFU;
2. revised and resubmitted manuscripts;
3. accepted manuscripts;
4. published articles;
5. supplementary materials;
6. research data and code;
7. figures, tables, photographs, diagrams, and scientific images;
8. equations, models, protocols, and methodological descriptions;
9. preprints, theses, dissertations, conference materials, proceedings, and repository versions related to a submission; and
10. authors, contributors, editors, reviewers, guest editors, Editorial Board members, and journal staff involved in the publication process.

JFU uses similarity-detection software, including Turnitin, as an editorial screening tool. A Similarity Report identifies text that matches material available in the system’s selected databases. It does not independently determine whether plagiarism, text recycling, duplicate publication, or another form of misconduct has occurred.

Every similarity report is assessed by an editor in context. The assessment considers the source, extent, concentration, location, pattern, attribution, quotation, citation, disciplinary terminology, methodological language, prior dissemination, reuse of research content, and effect of the overlap on the originality and reliability of the manuscript.

JFU develops this policy with reference to the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reference to COPE guidance does not constitute a statement that JFU is a COPE member unless such membership is separately confirmed and publicly verifiable.

 

Policy

 

1. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person’s words, ideas, data, results, images, tables, figures, equations, software, code, methods, or other intellectual contribution without appropriate acknowledgment, in a manner that may lead readers to understand the material as original to the submitting author.

Plagiarism may occur regardless of:

1. whether the original material is published or unpublished;
2. whether the source is available in print or electronically;
3. whether the source is written in the same language or translated from another language;
4. whether the material is copied exactly or closely paraphrased;
5. whether the original creator has given informal permission;
6. whether the source is an article, thesis, dissertation, preprint, conference paper, report, website, repository, dataset, software package, presentation, or other work; or
7. whether the affected material represents a small or substantial portion of the manuscript.

Appropriate citation alone may not be sufficient when wording is reproduced substantially. Directly reproduced wording must normally be identified through quotation marks, block quotation, or another accepted method of distinguishing copied text, subject to disciplinary conventions and copyright requirements.

 

2. Forms of Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

1. copying sentences, paragraphs, or other text without appropriate quotation and citation;
2. paraphrasing another person’s ideas or writing without appropriate acknowledgment;
3. translating material from another language without acknowledgment;
4. combining material from multiple sources to create unattributed mosaic or patchwork text;
5. presenting another person’s data, results, images, tables, figures, equations, software, code, or methods as original;
6. reusing a figure, table, dataset, image, map, diagram, questionnaire, or code without attribution or permission where required;
7. presenting another person’s unpublished manuscript, peer-review report, research proposal, thesis, presentation, or confidential material as original work;
8. appropriating an idea obtained through peer review, editorial work, supervision, collaboration, or confidential correspondence;
9. using citations in a misleading manner that conceals the source of copied or closely paraphrased material; and
10. substantially reproducing material while making only superficial changes to wording, sentence order, symbols, labels, translation, or formatting.

 

3. Text Recycling

Text recycling, sometimes referred to as self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses text from the author’s own previous work without sufficient transparency, acknowledgment, citation, or quotation.

Text recycling is not evaluated solely on the number of matching words or the overall similarity percentage.

The editor will consider:

1. how much material has been reused;
2. where the reused material appears;
3. whether the original source is cited;
4. whether the reuse was disclosed to JFU;
5. whether the reused material concerns background, methods, results, discussion, or conclusions;
6. whether the reused text is necessary to describe a standard or previously reported method;
7. whether previous data, results, images, or conclusions are presented as new;
8. whether the submitted manuscript contains a sufficiently original contribution;
9. whether copyright or licensing conditions are affected; and
10. whether readers could be misled about the originality of the manuscript.

Limited reuse of standard methodological language may be acceptable only where substantially different wording would reduce technical accuracy or clarity, the earlier work is cited where appropriate, the reuse is proportionate, and the manuscript does not misrepresent the method as newly developed.

Reuse of substantial material from the introduction, results, discussion, or conclusion without transparent acknowledgment is normally unacceptable.

Reuse of previously disseminated data, results, images, or conclusions without clear identification and scientific justification may constitute duplicate or redundant publication rather than text recycling.

 

4. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication occurs when substantially the same data, analysis, interpretation, findings, or article are published or submitted more than once without appropriate disclosure, citation, permission, or scientific justification.

Examples include:

1. submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time;
2. publishing substantially the same article in more than one journal;
3. presenting previously published data, results, or conclusions as new;
4. dividing one study into multiple publications in a manner that is misleading or scientifically unjustified;
5. republishing conference, thesis, dissertation, repository, or preprint material without disclosing the relationship to the submitted manuscript;
6. changing the title, author order, language, or formatting while retaining substantially the same content;
7. republishing a translated version without disclosure, authorization, cross-reference, or appropriate agreement; and
8. reusing substantial data, figures, tables, analyses, or conclusions without identifying the earlier publication.

JFU does not normally accept secondary publication. Any exceptional proposal must:

1. be disclosed before submission;
2. have a clear scholarly justification;
3. be approved by the relevant copyright holder and original publisher where required;
4. be clearly identified as secondary publication;
5. cite and cross-reference the original publication;
6. comply with applicable licensing conditions; and
7. receive written approval from the JFU Editor-in-Chief before editorial processing begins.

 

5. Preprints, Theses, Dissertations, and Conference Materials

JFU does not automatically treat transparent prior dissemination through a preprint, thesis, dissertation, institutional repository, conference abstract, presentation, or proceeding as plagiarism or duplicate journal publication.

Authors must:

1. disclose relevant prior dissemination at submission;
2. provide a link, citation, or copy of the related material where available;
3. explain the relationship between the submitted manuscript and the prior version;
4. cite the prior version where appropriate;
5. ensure that the submitted manuscript complies with applicable copyright and licensing conditions; and
6. identify substantial additions, changes, or developments where requested by the editor.

A thesis or dissertation is treated as prior dissemination that must be disclosed, not automatically as prior journal publication. The editor will consider its accessibility, licensing, extent of overlap, attribution, and the original contribution of the submitted manuscript.

Failure to disclose closely related prior dissemination may result in additional editorial assessment and may be handled under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

After publication, authors should update any permitted preprint, thesis record, or repository entry with the complete JFU citation, Digital Object Identifier, and a link to the version of record, where the relevant platform permits such an update.

 

6. Reuse of Data, Images, Figures, and Tables

Authors must clearly identify any previously disseminated data, images, figures, tables, diagrams, maps, or other visual material.

Reuse requires:

1. citation of the original source;
2. disclosure that the material has been published or disseminated previously;
3. permission where required;
4. an appropriate credit line;
5. compliance with the original license; and
6. a clear explanation where previously reported data are reanalyzed, extended, compared, or combined with new data.

Modification of labels, colors, orientation, cropping, scale, contrast, or formatting does not make previously published material original.

Authors must not submit duplicated, manipulated, or deceptively altered images to conceal earlier publication, data reuse, or inappropriate manipulation.

Textual similarity and reuse of research content are assessed separately. A manuscript may have a low similarity score while still containing undisclosed reuse of data, images, analyses, results, or conclusions.

Concerns involving fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or data integrity are handled under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy and the Research Data, Code, Materials and Reproducibility Policy.

 

7. Reuse of Methods, Equations, Models, and Software

JFU recognizes that physics research may require the use of standard equations, established experimental methods, conventional instrument descriptions, recognized computational procedures, and commonly used software.

Use of established disciplinary material is not automatically plagiarism. However, authors must:

1. cite the original or most appropriate source where attribution is required;
2. identify previously published methods developed by the authors or others;
3. distinguish established procedures from new methods or modifications;
4. disclose reuse of substantial methodological text;
5. identify software, code, algorithms, models, and versions appropriately;
6. comply with applicable software, code, and data licenses; and
7. avoid claiming established methods, equations, algorithms, models, or software as original developments.

Descriptions of standard methods may contain unavoidable textual similarity. Editors will assess whether the overlap is necessary, proportionate, transparent, and appropriately attributed.

 

8. Similarity Screening

JFU uses Turnitin or another institutionally approved similarity-detection system to support editorial screening.

Similarity screening forms part of the journal’s editorial-integrity controls. Authors are not charged a separate fee for similarity screening, and the result is assessed independently of APC payment, waiver, or discount arrangements.

A Similarity Report is an investigative aid and not a plagiarism verdict. JFU does not determine plagiarism solely from:

1. the total similarity percentage;
2. the color assigned to a similarity report;
3. the number of matching sources;
4. a single matching passage; or
5. the result of automated software without editorial assessment.

The editor reviews meaningful matches and considers:

1. the source of each match;
2. the length and concentration of the matching material;
3. the manuscript section in which it occurs;
4. whether the material is quoted and cited correctly;
5. whether references or journal-template text are included in the score;
6. whether the match comes from the authors’ previous work;
7. whether the match comes from a preprint, thesis, repository, or conference version;
8. whether data, images, methods, ideas, or conclusions are duplicated;
9. whether the overlap affects the manuscript’s original contribution; and
10. whether a pattern suggests deliberate concealment or manipulation.

 

9. Similarity Threshold

A total similarity score above 30% normally triggers additional editorial assessment.

A score above 30% does not automatically establish plagiarism and does not automatically result in rejection.

A manuscript with a score below 30% may still contain plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, misuse of data or images, or another integrity concern.

The 30% threshold is an internal screening indicator rather than a definitive standard of originality or an acceptance criterion. It does not limit the editor’s authority to assess manuscripts with lower or higher similarity scores on their individual merits.

Editors may examine any manuscript regardless of its total similarity score when:

1. a match is concentrated in a scientifically important section;
2. another person’s ideas, data, results, or conclusions appear to have been appropriated;
3. a source has not been acknowledged;
4. the results, discussion, or conclusions overlap materially with earlier work;
5. images, tables, equations, software, or code appear to have been duplicated;
6. the manuscript appears to have been altered to evade similarity detection; or
7. a concern is reported by a reviewer, reader, editor, another journal, or another affected party.

 

10. Exclusions and Report Configuration

Where technically appropriate, editorial assessment may exclude or separately consider:

1. the reference list;
2. correctly marked quotations;
3. standard declarations;
4. journal-template wording;
5. short or insignificant matches;
6. commonly used technical expressions;
7. standard names of instruments, institutions, methods, or software; and
8. material previously disclosed and appropriately cited.

An exclusion changes the similarity calculation but does not automatically determine whether the use of the material is acceptable.

JFU may retain both the original report and any adjusted report, together with the editor’s contextual assessment, as part of the confidential editorial record.

 

11. Author Responsibilities

Authors must:

1. submit original work;
2. cite and acknowledge all relevant sources;
3. use quotation marks or another appropriate method for reproduced wording;
4. disclose related manuscripts and prior dissemination;
5. identify reuse of the authors’ previous material;
6. obtain permissions where required;
7. ensure that all co-authors understand and approve the submitted content;
8. respond truthfully and completely to editorial enquiries;
9. provide related publications or source material when requested; and
10. correct inappropriate overlap before publication when invited to do so.

Authors must not:

1. alter text merely to evade similarity-detection software while retaining unattributed ideas or structure;
2. use automated paraphrasing, translation, text-spinning, or generative-AI tools to conceal copied material;
3. fabricate citations or sources to create the appearance of attribution;
4. omit a relevant prior publication to conceal duplicate or redundant content;
5. reuse copyright-protected material without authorization where permission is required; or
6. submit a manuscript known to contain unattributed or improperly reused material.

 

12. Use of Generative AI

Use of generative AI does not remove the authors’ responsibility for originality, attribution, accuracy, copyright compliance, and integrity.

Authors must not use generative AI to:

1. reproduce or paraphrase source material without appropriate attribution;
2. conceal plagiarism or text recycling;
3. fabricate references, quotations, data, results, or sources;
4. generate misleading images or synthetic data without disclosure;
5. bypass or manipulate similarity screening; or
6. misrepresent AI-generated or AI-assisted content as independently authored or observed material.

Substantive use of generative AI must be disclosed in accordance with the JFU Generative AI Policy.

Suspected deceptive or undisclosed AI-assisted copying will be assessed under this policy and, where appropriate, the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

 

13. Contextual and Proportionate Assessment

JFU assesses each originality concern individually and proportionately.

The designated non-conflicted editor considers:

1. the nature and extent of the overlap;
2. the importance of the affected material;
3. whether the concern involves text, ideas, data, images, software, results, or conclusions;
4. whether the original source is cited;
5. whether the overlap was disclosed;
6. whether readers could be misled;
7. whether the concern appears inadvertent, negligent, reckless, or deliberate;
8. whether copyright, licensing, privacy, or confidentiality conditions may have been breached;
9. whether the originality or reliability of the manuscript is affected;
10. whether the authors have previously received guidance about similar concerns; and
11. whether another journal, institution, funder, ethics committee, or competent authority should be informed.

JFU may use an educational and corrective response for limited or apparently inadvertent problems. Serious, extensive, deceptive, repeated, or coordinated conduct may result in rejection, institutional referral, or formal post-publication action.

 

14. Limited or Correctable Overlap

Where overlap is limited and does not appear to affect the originality or reliability of the work, JFU may:

1. request correct citation;
2. request the addition of quotation marks or another appropriate form of attribution;
3. request rewriting of the affected passage;
4. require disclosure of related work;
5. request permission or an appropriate credit line;
6. require clarification of the manuscript’s original contribution; or
7. continue editorial assessment after satisfactory correction.

An invitation to correct a manuscript does not guarantee that the manuscript will be sent for peer review or accepted for publication.

 

15. Material or Serious Concerns

Material or serious concerns may include:

1. extensive unattributed copying;
2. appropriation of another person’s ideas, data, images, results, or conclusions;
3. substantial overlap in the results, discussion, or conclusion;
4. duplicate or redundant publication;
5. concealed reuse of previously disseminated data;
6. manipulation intended to evade similarity screening;
7. repeated concerns after prior editorial guidance;
8. infringement of copyright, privacy, or confidentiality;
9. plagiarism of unpublished or confidential material;
10. fabricated or misleading citation;
11. undisclosed AI-assisted copying; or
12. evidence of coordinated or deliberate misconduct.

Possible actions include:

1. suspending editorial processing;
2. requesting a written explanation and supporting records;
3. requiring substantial correction;
4. rejecting the manuscript;
5. closing the submission;
6. informing another affected journal or publisher;
7. referring the matter to the authors’ institution, employer, ethics committee, funder, or another competent authority;
8. reconsidering another related submission;
9. issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for published content; or
10. taking another proportionate action under the relevant JFU policy.

 

16. Communication with Authors

For a limited and correctable concern, the Journal Office may initially communicate with the corresponding author.

For a material or serious concern, correspondence will normally be copied to all listed authors.

Communication may initially be limited where confidentiality, personal-data protection, legal requirements, protection of a complainant, or the integrity of an institutional investigation provides a documented reason.

Authors must not alter the author list during an active integrity assessment except with the written approval of JFU under the Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

 

17. Resubmission

A manuscript rejected because of a limited and correctable originality concern may be resubmitted only when the decision letter expressly permits resubmission.

A manuscript rejected because of confirmed serious plagiarism, duplicate publication, deceptive reuse, or publication-process manipulation is not eligible for immediate resubmission.

Any permitted resubmission:

1. is treated as a new submission;
2. must disclose the previous manuscript identifier and decision;
3. must explain the corrections and substantive changes made;
4. may be screened again using similarity-detection software; and
5. receives no guarantee of peer review or acceptance.

 

18. Concerns Involving Published Articles

A plagiarism or text-recycling concern raised after publication will be assessed regardless of who reports it.

JFU will consider:

1. the originality and reliability of the published article;
2. the extent and location of the affected material;
3. whether data, results, images, analyses, or conclusions are duplicated;
4. whether the original source has been acknowledged;
5. whether correction can adequately protect readers;
6. whether the principal findings remain reliable;
7. whether institutional investigation is required; and
8. whether another publication is affected.

A correction may be appropriate when the affected material is limited and the findings remain reliable.

Retraction may be appropriate when plagiarism, duplicate publication, or undisclosed reuse is extensive or materially compromises originality, attribution, or reliability.

An expression of concern may be used while a serious matter remains under investigation, when evidence is inconclusive, or when a necessary institutional response is delayed.

All post-publication actions follow the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Discussion Policy.

 

19. Confidentiality and Fair Process

Plagiarism and text-recycling concerns will be handled fairly, confidentially, consistently, and without presuming misconduct before the available evidence has been assessed.

An editor with an actual, potential, or perceived competing interest must not handle the case.

Authors will normally receive:

1. a neutral description of the concern;
2. identification of the relevant material or sources where appropriate;
3. a reasonable opportunity to respond; and
4. notice of the editorial outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality, privacy, legal requirements, and institutional processes.

The identity of a complainant will not be disclosed unless disclosure is necessary, appropriate, and lawful.

Good-faith complainants, respondents, reviewers, editors, witnesses, and journal staff must not be subjected to retaliation through JFU’s processes.

If the concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal Office will refer the matter to an independent senior editor or a publisher-appointed officer who was not involved in the case.

 

20. Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision under this policy where they can identify:

1. a material factual error;
2. a material procedural error;
3. relevant evidence that was not considered;
4. an unmanaged competing interest; or
5. evidence that the classification of the overlap was materially incorrect.

Disagreement with the similarity percentage or editorial judgment, without evidence of a material error, is not sufficient.

Appeals are handled under the JFU Complaints and Appeals Policy. The appeal must be reviewed by a person who was not the sole decision-maker in the original matter.

 

21. Related Policies

This policy should be read together with:

1. Publication Ethics;
2. Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct;
3. Authorship and Contributorship;
4. Complaints and Appeals;
5. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests;
6. Research Data, Code, Materials and Reproducibility;
7. Ethical Oversight of Research;
8. Peer Review Policy;
9. Generative AI Policy;
10. Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Discussion;
11. Copyright, Licensing and Third-Party Material; and
12. Open Access Policy.

Technical Operational Steps

1. The Journal Office or designated editor submits the manuscript to Turnitin or another institutionally approved similarity-detection system before external peer review or at another appropriate editorial stage.
2. The original Similarity Report is retained as part of the confidential editorial record.
3. The handling editor reviews the matched sources and does not rely solely on the total percentage, report color, or number of matches.
4. Where appropriate, the editor separately considers references, quotations, journal-template wording, short matches, standard terminology, and disclosed prior versions.
5. A total similarity score above 30% triggers additional editorial assessment but does not automatically establish plagiarism or require rejection.
6. The editor considers the source, extent, concentration, location, attribution, prior dissemination, reuse of research content, original contribution, and possible effect on readers.
7. The concern is provisionally classified as:

1. no material concern;
2. limited or correctable overlap;
3. material text recycling or insufficient disclosure;
4. potential plagiarism requiring further assessment;
5. potential duplicate or redundant publication;
6. potential misuse of data, images, tables, equations, software, or code; or
7. another potential integrity concern.
8. An editor with a relevant competing interest recuses themselves, and the case is reassigned to a designated non-conflicted editor.
9. If the concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal Office refers the case to an independent senior editor or a publisher-appointed officer who was not involved in the matter.
10. If the matches are appropriately attributed, insignificant, standard, necessary, or otherwise acceptable, the editor records the assessment and continues normal editorial processing.
11. For limited or apparently inadvertent overlap, the editor sends the relevant passages or sources to the corresponding author and requests citation, quotation, disclosure, permission, clarification, or rewriting.
12. The corresponding author provides a written explanation, a revised manuscript where requested, and copies or links to relevant related works.
13. For a material or serious concern, correspondence is normally copied to all listed authors. Any decision to limit initial communication is documented.
14. If plagiarism, duplicate publication, deceptive reuse, or another serious issue is suspected, editorial processing is suspended while the concern is assessed.
15. JFU may request prior manuscripts, publications, theses, preprints, datasets, original images, code, permissions, submission records, licenses, or other relevant documents.
16. Where necessary, JFU may communicate with another journal, publisher, repository, institution, ethics committee, funder, or competent authority.
17. Information is shared only to the extent reasonably necessary for editorial assessment, formal investigation, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record.
18. The designated non-conflicted editor decides whether to continue review, require correction, reject the manuscript, close the submission, permit a future resubmission, refer the concern under the Misconduct Policy, or take another proportionate action.
19. The corresponding author and, for a material or serious concern, normally all listed authors receive a reasoned written decision. Confidential or personal information is not disclosed improperly.
20. Where the decision expressly permits resubmission, the new submission must disclose the previous manuscript identifier, decision, and substantive corrections.
21. A concern involving a published article is logged with the article DOI, date received, allegation, evidence, related sources, and complainant information where available.
22. A designated non-conflicted editor assesses whether the concern affects wording, attribution, copyright, originality, data, images, results, conclusions, or overall reliability.
23. Authors receive the substance of a credible post-publication concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
24. Where formal investigation is required, the Editor-in-Chief or designated independent officer contacts the appropriate institutional research-integrity office.
25. JFU may publish an expression of concern when serious doubt exists and an investigation is delayed, incomplete, or inconclusive.
26. Confirmed concerns are addressed through a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another permanent notice in accordance with the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Discussion Policy.
27. Where post-publication action is taken, the article landing page, PDF, HTML, issue table of contents, and relevant metadata are updated consistently.
28. An eligible appeal is recorded and assigned under the Complaints and Appeals Policy to a person who was not the sole decision-maker in the original matter.
29. Similarity reports, matched sources, correspondence, author responses, editorial assessments, decisions, referrals, appeals, and publication actions are retained securely for at least five years after closure of the case, subject to any longer institutional, legal, contractual, or research-integrity requirement.
30. Repeated concerns involving an author, reviewer, editor, institution, source, or publication pattern may be referred for broader assessment under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.
31. The Editor-in-Chief periodically reviews the consistency of similarity screening, editorial classifications, response times, outcomes, appeals, and any evidence of systematic manipulation.
32. This policy is reviewed at least once every two years and earlier whenever screening technology, journal procedures, professional guidance, institutional requirements, or applicable law materially change.