Plagiarism Policy

JESS | PUBLICATION ETHICS AND ORIGINALITY

Plagiarism Policy and Similarity Screening

 

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science) is committed to promoting originality, academic honesty, responsible attribution, and integrity in scholarly publication. The journal does not accept plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication. Authors must ensure that their work appropriately acknowledges the intellectual contributions of others and accurately distinguishes original research from previously published or disseminated material.

ORIGINALITY AND SIMILARITY SCREENING PRINCIPLES

Originality: All manuscripts must represent original and appropriately attributed scholarly work.
Plagiarism: Unattributed appropriation of another person's intellectual work is unacceptable.
Similarity Screening: Textual matches require contextual editorial examination.
Author Responsibility: Authors must verify citations, originality, and the accuracy of submitted materials.
Editorial Fairness: Suspected violations must be evaluated using evidence, explanation, and applicable publication ethics procedures.

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy establishes principles for preventing, identifying, assessing, and responding to plagiarism and inappropriate textual overlap in manuscripts submitted to or published by JESS.

The policy applies to Research Articles, Literature Reviews, revised manuscripts, supplementary materials, tables, figures, datasets, and other scholarly materials submitted for publication.

The policy also applies to the professional responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in evaluating manuscript originality and publication integrity.

Plagiarism assessment is intended to protect intellectual contributions and the reliability of the scientific record. Editorial decisions should be made using appropriate evidence and scholarly judgment rather than relying exclusively on automated indicators.

2. Definition and Forms of Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when an individual presents the intellectual work of another person as their own without appropriate acknowledgment. It can involve text, ideas, interpretations, research data, methods, images, or other scholarly contributions.

2.1. Direct Plagiarism

Copying text from another source without appropriate quotation, citation, permission where required, or other necessary acknowledgment.

2.2. Paraphrasing Plagiarism

Rewriting another person's text or ideas while retaining their essential intellectual content without appropriately identifying the original source.

2.3. Mosaic or Patchwork Plagiarism

Combining phrases, sentences, or ideas from multiple sources with minor alterations and presenting the resulting text without proper attribution.

2.4. Idea and Conceptual Plagiarism

Appropriating another researcher's original concepts, theoretical arguments, research designs, interpretations, or intellectual contributions without acknowledgment.

2.5. Data and Results Plagiarism

Presenting another researcher's datasets, empirical findings, statistical results, interview material, or other research evidence without appropriate authorization or acknowledgment.

2.6. Figure and Image Plagiarism

Reproducing or adapting figures, diagrams, photographs, tables, or other visual materials without appropriate citation or required permission.

2.7. Translation Plagiarism

Translating another person's published or unpublished work into a different language and presenting the translated material without identifying the original source.

The seriousness of an alleged violation depends on the nature of the copied material, the extent of unattributed intellectual appropriation, its significance to the manuscript, and the surrounding circumstances.

3. Similarity Screening and Editorial Assessment

Similarity screening is an important component of manuscript originality assessment. Where appropriate screening tools are available, the editorial team may use them to identify textual overlap with previously published literature or other accessible sources.

A similarity report identifies matching or overlapping material. It does not independently determine whether plagiarism has occurred. Editorial interpretation is necessary to distinguish legitimate textual similarities from unattributed appropriation of intellectual work.

During assessment, editors should consider:

  • The source and nature of the matched material;
  • Whether the source has been cited appropriately;
  • The extent and distribution of overlapping passages;
  • Whether copied material constitutes original intellectual content;
  • Whether quotations and reproduced materials are properly identified;
  • Whether the overlap involves the authors' own previous publications;
  • Whether the overlap concerns standard terminology or commonly used methodological descriptions;
  • The effect of the overlap on originality and the reliability of the manuscript.

Similarity screening may be conducted during initial editorial assessment or at another appropriate stage of manuscript processing. Additional checks may be undertaken when significant concerns are identified during peer review or after publication.

4. Interpretation of Similarity Results

JESS recognizes that similarity percentages are screening indicators rather than direct measurements of plagiarism. The interpretation of a similarity report must consider both the quantity and the academic significance of the overlapping content.

Similarity Is Not the Same as Plagiarism

A manuscript with a relatively low similarity percentage may still contain serious plagiarism if it appropriates a significant original idea or finding. Conversely, a manuscript with a higher percentage of textual matches may contain properly cited quotations, references, standard expressions, or legitimate methodological descriptions.

The editorial team should examine the underlying passages and sources rather than interpret the total similarity percentage in isolation.

Where a numerical similarity threshold is formally adopted by the journal, it should be communicated consistently through the approved Author Guidelines and editorial procedures. Any threshold should support, rather than replace, contextual evaluation.

A manuscript should not automatically be accepted solely because its similarity score is low, nor should a manuscript automatically be classified as plagiarized solely because a screening report identifies a high level of textual overlap.

5. Text Recycling and Overlap with Previous Publications

Text recycling occurs when authors reuse material from their own previous publications without sufficient clarification or acknowledgment of the earlier source.

Text recycling should be assessed separately from plagiarism involving another person's work. Its acceptability depends on the nature and amount of repeated material, the publication context, copyright considerations, and whether the new manuscript offers a meaningful original contribution.

Editorial assessment should consider:

  • Whether the prior work has been appropriately cited;
  • Whether the reused material is confined to conventional methodological descriptions;
  • Whether the manuscript repeats substantial previous findings or analysis;
  • Whether the new work presents a sufficiently distinct research contribution;
  • Whether the overlap violates copyright or licensing restrictions;
  • Whether relevant previous dissemination was disclosed to the editorial office.

Limited repetition of technical or methodological descriptions may be acceptable in some circumstances. However, undisclosed reproduction of substantial portions of previous results, discussion, or conclusions may raise concerns about redundant publication.

Authors must disclose previous publications closely related to the submitted work so that the editorial team can assess overlap, originality, and compliance with publication ethics.

6. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors bear primary responsibility for ensuring the originality, appropriate attribution, and scholarly integrity of manuscripts submitted to JESS.

Authors are expected to:

  • Submit original work that appropriately acknowledges previous research;
  • Use accurate and complete citations for borrowed ideas, arguments, data, and other materials;
  • Identify direct quotations using appropriate quotation and referencing conventions;
  • Ensure that paraphrased material does not conceal the original intellectual source;
  • Obtain permission where required for copyrighted materials;
  • Disclose relevant previous publications and closely related manuscripts;
  • Verify the authenticity and accuracy of all references;
  • Review the manuscript for potentially inappropriate textual overlap before submission;
  • Cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries concerning originality;
  • Ensure that all co-authors are aware of and comply with relevant publication ethics requirements.

The corresponding author should coordinate relevant originality declarations with all co-authors. However, every author remains responsible for the integrity of their scholarly contributions and the accuracy of the information they provide.

7. Procedures for Suspected Plagiarism in Submitted Manuscripts

When suspected plagiarism is identified before publication, the editorial team should assess the concern using a fair and evidence-based process.

Stage 1. Identification and Documentation

The editorial team identifies potentially problematic passages, sources, figures, data, or other materials and records the available supporting evidence.

Stage 2. Contextual Evaluation

The editor examines the extent and significance of the overlap, the adequacy of attribution, and whether the material involves another person's work or the authors' previous publications.

Stage 3. Author Clarification

Where material concerns remain, the corresponding author may be asked to explain the similarities, identify the relevant sources, and provide supporting documentation.

Stage 4. Editorial Determination

The editor evaluates the findings and the author's explanation to determine whether the concern can be resolved through correction, requires further assessment, or provides sufficient grounds for rejection.

Stage 5. Further Action Where Necessary

Serious or unresolved concerns may be referred to relevant research institutions or handled under the journal's procedures for allegations of research misconduct.

Minor citation or quotation errors should be distinguished from substantial unattributed appropriation. Editorial action must reflect the nature and seriousness of the verified problem.

8. Procedures for Suspected Plagiarism in Published Articles

Allegations of plagiarism involving articles already published by JESS must be considered carefully because they may affect the integrity of the scholarly record and the intellectual property rights of other researchers.

When credible concerns are received, the editorial team should examine the relevant material, compare it with the identified sources, request clarification from the authors, and determine whether further investigation is necessary.

Possible editorial outcomes include:

8.1. No Further Action

Where the concern is not substantiated and no correction is needed, the assessment may be closed with an appropriate internal record.

8.2. Correction

A correction may be appropriate when attribution or presentation requires amendment and the article's principal findings remain reliable.

8.3. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be considered when serious and credible issues remain unresolved and readers should be informed while additional assessment continues.

8.4. Retraction

Retraction may be warranted when substantial plagiarism or related publication integrity problems seriously undermine the article and meet the applicable criteria for retraction.

Editorial notices should accurately identify the affected article, explain the reason for the action, and remain accessible and linked to the published work.

9. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers share responsibility for supporting the originality and integrity of scholarly manuscripts.

Editors are expected to:

  • Evaluate credible originality concerns impartially;
  • Examine the context of textual overlap;
  • Request clarification where necessary;
  • Differentiate honest errors from serious research integrity concerns;
  • Protect confidential manuscript information;
  • Make decisions consistent with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Reviewers who identify possible plagiarism should report their concerns confidentially to the handling editor and identify the relevant passages or sources where possible.

Reviewers should not make public accusations, contact authors independently about suspected misconduct, or undertake unauthorized investigations. The assessment and any resulting editorial action should be coordinated through the journal's designated procedures.

10. Artificial Intelligence and Plagiarism

AI-assisted tools may generate text, references, visual materials, or analytical outputs that raise questions about originality, attribution, and research integrity.

Authors remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted content and ensuring that it does not incorporate unattributed intellectual material, fabricated references, misleading citations, or inaccurate representations of research evidence.

The use of AI to paraphrase copied content does not remove the obligation to acknowledge the original intellectual source. Likewise, AI-generated text must not be used to disguise plagiarism or duplicate publication.

Concerns about AI-assisted plagiarism should be assessed using verifiable evidence and contextual analysis. Automated AI-content detection results alone are insufficient to establish plagiarism or misconduct.

11. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Allegations of plagiarism must be handled fairly and with appropriate confidentiality. An allegation should not be presented as a confirmed finding before the relevant evidence has been assessed.

Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to clarify disputed passages, explain the origin of overlapping materials, and provide relevant documentation.

Editors must also consider whether the concern involves innocent citation errors, misunderstandings of quotation conventions, inadequate disclosure of previous work, or deliberate misappropriation.

Confidential manuscript files, similarity reports, and editorial correspondence should be accessed only by appropriately authorized individuals and handled in accordance with relevant institutional and data-protection requirements.

12. Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other members of the scholarly community may report credible concerns about plagiarism involving submitted or published materials.

Reports should include, where available:

  1. The title of the manuscript or published article concerned;
  2. The relevant article URL, DOI, or submission identifier;
  3. A clear description of the suspected plagiarism;
  4. Identification of the original source or sources;
  5. Relevant passages, figures, tables, or other supporting materials;
  6. Any additional documentary evidence that may assist editorial assessment.

Reports should be submitted through the official journal communication channels. Concerns should be stated factually and without unsupported allegations.

The editorial team may request additional information or refer serious research integrity concerns to the relevant institutions where further investigation is necessary.

13. Appeals and Requests for Reconsideration

Authors who believe that an editorial decision concerning plagiarism was based on a material factual error, procedural irregularity, or misunderstanding may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration.

An appeal should identify the decision being challenged and provide relevant evidence or a substantive explanation. Mere disagreement with an editorial judgment does not automatically justify reversal.

Where necessary, an appeal should be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor who has no material conflict of interest in the matter.

14. Commitment to Academic Integrity

JESS supports a culture of academic honesty, transparent scholarship, responsible citation, and respect for intellectual contributions.

The journal encourages authors to develop original research questions, use reliable and accurately acknowledged sources, report their own analyses transparently, and recognize the contributions of previous scholarship.

Prevention of plagiarism is a shared responsibility. Authors, reviewers, editors, and publishing institutions should contribute to the protection of scholarly originality and the reliability of the scientific record.

15. Supporting Standards and Related Policies

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Plagiarism in a Submitted Manuscript: COPE Flowchart.
COPE Plagiarism Flowchart

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Guidance on Text Recycling and Overlap with Previous Publications.
COPE Official Website

Plagiarism and Originality Inquiries

Authors, reviewers, readers, and research institutions seeking clarification or wishing to report a concern related to plagiarism should contact the JESS editorial office.

JESS Editorial Office

Faculty of Social Science
Universitas Negeri Padang
Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, Air Tawar
Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Email:
journaljessfis@gmail.com

Telephone:
+62 852-6363-9233

Contact the Editorial Office →

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science)

Published by the Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia

Print ISSN: 2622-0741 | Electronic ISSN: 2550-0147