Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism Prevention, Similarity Screening, and Research Originality Policy

Jurnal Ilmiah Ekotrans & Erudisi (JIEE) is committed to promoting original scholarship, responsible citation practices, transparent research reporting, intellectual property protection, and the integrity of the scholarly publication record.

Plagiarism, inappropriate textual appropriation, misleading attribution, and the misrepresentation of another person's intellectual contributions as one's own are unacceptable in manuscripts submitted to or published by JIEE.

The journal uses Turnitin as part of its manuscript similarity screening procedure. Similarity checking supports editorial assessment but does not independently establish whether plagiarism has occurred.

This policy defines unacceptable forms of plagiarism and related originality violations, explains how similarity reports are evaluated, establishes proportionate editorial procedures, and clarifies the responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant guidance on suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscripts and published articles.

1. Purpose and Scope

The purposes of this policy are to:

Promote authentic and original scholarly contributions.
Protect the intellectual contributions of researchers and other creators.
Encourage accurate acknowledgment of ideas, concepts, methods, data, and publications.
Prevent plagiarism, misleading reuse, and inappropriate duplication.
Provide a transparent basis for manuscript similarity screening.
Ensure that similarity reports are evaluated through informed human judgment.
Establish fair procedures for handling suspected plagiarism.
Support proportionate editorial and post-publication actions.
Maintain a reliable and trustworthy scholarly publication record.

This policy applies to all manuscript types, authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the journal's scholarly publication process.

2. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when an individual uses or presents another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, methods, interpretations, images, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment, in a manner that misrepresents their origin or authorship.

Plagiarism may involve direct copying, substantial paraphrasing, translation, unauthorized appropriation of intellectual content, or other practices that conceal the source of scholarly material.

Plagiarism may occur even when the source is publicly accessible, freely available, or distributed under an open-access license.

Proper attribution is required whenever scholarly material is derived from an identifiable source, except where the information genuinely constitutes widely recognized common knowledge.

Authors must accurately distinguish their original work from intellectual contributions previously developed by others.

3. Forms of Plagiarism

3.1. Direct or Verbatim Plagiarism

Direct plagiarism involves reproducing another person's text without appropriate quotation, citation, or acknowledgment.

Copying substantial text from journal articles, books, dissertations, reports, websites, or unpublished works without proper attribution is prohibited.

3.2. Paraphrasing Plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism occurs when an author reproduces another source's ideas, argument structure, reasoning, or substantive content through superficial wording changes without acknowledging the original source.

Replacing words with synonyms or changing sentence order does not eliminate the requirement for attribution.

3.3. Idea and Conceptual Plagiarism

Using another researcher's original theory, conceptual model, analytical framework, hypothesis, interpretation, or distinctive scholarly argument without acknowledgment constitutes inappropriate intellectual appropriation.

Authors must cite the source of relevant ideas even when they independently develop or extend those ideas in a new context.

3.4. Data and Research Findings Plagiarism

Presenting another researcher's datasets, interview findings, survey results, experimental observations, documentary evidence, statistical analyses, or other empirical findings as original research is prohibited.

Secondary data analysis is permissible when the data source, access conditions, methodological approach, and original contribution are disclosed appropriately.

3.5. Translation Plagiarism

Translation plagiarism occurs when text, arguments, or other intellectual material from a source in one language is translated into another language and presented without proper attribution.

Translation does not transform another person's intellectual contribution into original authorship.

3.6. Mosaic or Patchwork Plagiarism

Mosaic plagiarism involves combining copied phrases, paraphrased passages, or ideas from multiple sources into a manuscript without adequately identifying the original contributions.

The practice remains unacceptable even when individual sentences have been modified.

3.7. Figure, Table, and Visual Material Plagiarism

Reproducing or adapting tables, figures, diagrams, conceptual models, maps, images, or other visual materials without appropriate acknowledgment constitutes an originality violation.

Authors must also comply with relevant copyright, licensing, and third-party permission requirements.

3.8. Undisclosed Reuse of Previously Published Material

Reusing substantial portions of previously published content, including one's own work, without appropriate disclosure or citation may constitute unacceptable textual recycling, redundant publication, or another publication ethics concern.

Such cases must be evaluated according to their context and must not automatically be classified as plagiarism of another person's work.

4. Originality and Author Responsibilities

All authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts present an authentic and appropriately attributed scholarly contribution.

Before submission, authors must:

Confirm that the manuscript is original.
Ensure that all relevant sources are accurately cited.
Identify direct quotations using appropriate scholarly conventions.
Distinguish their own arguments from previously published ideas.
Verify the accuracy and existence of cited references.
Disclose relevant prior dissemination of the research.
Respect copyright and applicable reuse conditions.
Ensure that tables and figures are appropriately credited.
Review AI-assisted content for inaccurate or unattributed material.
Confirm that the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

Authors must not knowingly submit manuscripts containing fabricated references, misappropriated intellectual material, or misleading claims of originality.

The corresponding author must communicate applicable originality requirements to all co-authors and ensure that the complete manuscript has been approved for submission.

5. Citation, Quotation, and Source Attribution

Authors must acknowledge sources whenever previously published or unpublished intellectual contributions are used to support the manuscript.

Accurate citation is required for:

Distinctive theories, models, frameworks, and scholarly arguments.
Specific research findings and analytical interpretations.
Data derived from identifiable publications or repositories.
Methods or research instruments developed by other researchers when acknowledgment is appropriate.
Quoted text and substantially paraphrased content.
Previously published tables, figures, and visual materials.
Other intellectual contributions essential to understanding the manuscript.

Direct quotations must follow the journal's applicable APA referencing requirements.

Authors must not omit citations merely because a text has been translated, summarized, or reworded.

Accurate citation does not automatically resolve copyright restrictions or justify excessive reproduction of protected material.

6. Textual Recycling and Self-Reuse

JIEE distinguishes plagiarism of another person's work from the reuse of an author's own previously disseminated material.

Textual recycling may raise concerns when substantial material is reproduced without sufficient disclosure, appropriate citation, or justification.

Editors should evaluate the nature, location, extent, and scholarly significance of repeated material.

Limited reuse of conventional methodological descriptions or standard terminology may be legitimate when necessary for accurate research reporting and when relevant source acknowledgment is provided.

By contrast, substantial undisclosed reuse of previously published results, analyses, discussions, or conclusions may compromise the originality of a submitted manuscript.

Authors must disclose relevant overlap with previous publications and explain the new contribution of the submitted work.

7. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication

JIEE does not permit the simultaneous submission of substantially the same manuscript to another journal.

Redundant publication occurs when substantially overlapping scholarly work is presented as a separate original contribution without adequate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment.

Possible concerns include:

Submission of substantially identical manuscripts to multiple journals.
Republishing previously published findings without appropriate justification.
Concealing the existence of closely related publications.
Presenting substantially the same dataset and analysis as independent original research without a meaningful new contribution.
Inappropriate fragmentation of a single research project into multiple minimally differentiated publications.

Research derived from a dissertation, thesis, conference presentation, working paper, institutional report, or larger research project is not automatically considered plagiarism or duplicate publication.

Such manuscripts must be assessed according to the extent of previous dissemination, transparency of disclosure, originality of contribution, and applicable editorial and publishing requirements.

8. Preprints, Theses, Dissertations, and Repository Materials

JIEE recognizes that research may have been disseminated through academic repositories, preprint servers, dissertations, theses, conference materials, or other legitimate scholarly channels before journal submission.

Previous dissemination does not automatically constitute plagiarism.

Authors must disclose relevant prior versions when necessary to allow the editorial team to assess originality, publication history, and possible overlap.

The editor may request information about earlier versions, related manuscripts, or publication agreements.

A manuscript derived from an earlier academic work must demonstrate the scholarly contribution required by JIEE and must comply with applicable intellectual property and ethical requirements.

Authors must not conceal substantive previous publication merely to avoid similarity detection.

9. Similarity Screening Using Turnitin

JIEE uses Turnitin as part of the manuscript originality and similarity screening process.

Similarity screening assists editorial personnel in identifying textual overlap that may warrant closer examination.

The screening process may be conducted during initial editorial evaluation and repeated at later stages when substantial revisions, new concerns, or other relevant circumstances justify additional assessment.

Turnitin reports may identify overlap involving:

Published journal articles.
Books and other scholarly publications.
Theses, dissertations, and institutional repositories.
Conference proceedings and research reports.
Online documents and other indexed materials.
Previously available versions of the submitted manuscript.

The identification of matching text does not establish that plagiarism has occurred.

Similarity screening must be accompanied by an informed evaluation of the sources and context of the matching material.

10. Interpretation of Similarity Reports

JIEE does not treat a Turnitin similarity percentage as automatic proof of plagiarism or originality.

Similarity reports must be interpreted in context by the responsible editor.

Relevant considerations include:

The identity and reliability of the matching sources.
The location of overlapping text within the manuscript.
The extent and concentration of matching material.
Whether the source is accurately cited.
Whether direct quotation conventions are followed.
The presence of standard disciplinary terminology.
Necessary methodological descriptions or conventional phrases.
Bibliographic entries and accurately cited references.
Overlap involving legitimate previous versions of the manuscript.
The degree to which copied or paraphrased material affects the manuscript's original scholarly contribution.
Whether research findings, data, or analyses have been misattributed.

A manuscript with a relatively low similarity score may still contain serious plagiarism if important intellectual material is misappropriated.

Conversely, a manuscript with a relatively high similarity score may contain legitimate overlap involving appropriately cited sources, standard methods, or previously disclosed research materials.

The journal does not establish an automatic acceptance or rejection rule based solely on a numerical similarity score.

11. Similarity Thresholds and Editorial Judgment

Under this policy, originality decisions must be based on qualitative assessment of the evidence rather than an unverified or arbitrary similarity threshold.

No universal numerical Turnitin threshold is established as a definitive indicator of plagiarism.

If the journal subsequently adopts operational screening indicators, these must be formally authorized, applied consistently, and interpreted as preliminary review criteria rather than conclusive evidence of misconduct.

Editors must not assume that reducing a similarity percentage necessarily resolves all originality concerns.

Authors must not manipulate formatting, punctuation, character encoding, or wording merely to evade similarity detection.

Appropriate correction requires genuine rewriting, accurate acknowledgment, removal of inappropriate overlap, or other substantive measures relevant to the identified concern.

12. Editorial Screening Procedure

When a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office assesses its compliance with the journal's submission and originality requirements.

The plagiarism and similarity screening workflow includes:

Initial Submission: The manuscript is received through OJS.
Administrative Verification: The editorial office checks essential submission requirements.
Similarity Screening: The manuscript is examined using Turnitin where applicable.
Report Evaluation: The editor examines meaningful matches, source attribution, and the nature of textual overlap.
Preliminary Classification: The editor determines whether the report identifies no significant concern, a correctable problem, or a potentially serious originality issue.
Author Clarification: Authors may be asked to explain suspicious similarities and provide relevant documentation.
Editorial Action: The editor determines whether the manuscript may proceed, requires revision, should be suspended for further assessment, or should be rejected.
Documentation: Relevant screening findings, explanations, and decisions are recorded appropriately.

Similarity screening is an editorial quality-control process and does not replace independent scientific peer review.

13. Classification of Similarity and Originality Concerns

13.1. No Substantive Originality Concern

A manuscript may proceed when identified overlap is appropriately attributed, reflects legitimate scholarly conventions, or otherwise does not indicate a significant originality problem.

The editorial team may still request ordinary corrections to citation or formatting.

13.2. Correctable Attribution or Textual Problems

Minor problems may include isolated insufficiently attributed phrases, quotation formatting errors, or limited textual overlap that does not materially misrepresent authorship or original research contributions.

The editor may request rewriting, correct quotation, additional citation, or appropriate source acknowledgment.

13.3. Significant Originality Concerns

More serious concerns may include extensive unattributed copying, substantial disguised paraphrasing, misleading reuse of previously published analyses, or substantial overlap that undermines the manuscript's claimed contribution.

The editorial team may suspend review, request clarification, seek additional expert assessment, or reject the manuscript when the concern is sufficiently substantiated.

13.4. Potential Research Misconduct

Where evidence suggests deliberate appropriation of intellectual contributions, fabricated research evidence, systematic misrepresentation, or other serious misconduct, the journal may initiate an appropriate research integrity assessment.

Editors must distinguish established facts from unresolved allegations.

14. Author Clarification and Right of Response

Authors must ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations of plagiarism or serious originality violations.

The editorial office should communicate the relevant concern in neutral, professional, and sufficiently specific terms.

Where appropriate, authors may be requested to provide:

An explanation of the identified textual overlap.
The relevant original sources.
Earlier manuscript versions.
Documentation of previous dissemination.
Relevant publication agreements or permissions.
Other information necessary to evaluate the originality concern.

Authors must provide accurate information and must not submit fabricated documentation or misleading explanations.

The editorial office must evaluate the response objectively and avoid treating an allegation as proof of misconduct before the relevant evidence has been assessed.

15. Editorial Actions Before Publication

Where concerns are identified before publication, the journal may take actions proportionate to their nature, seriousness, and evidentiary support.

Possible actions include:

Allowing the manuscript to proceed when no meaningful originality violation is identified.
Requesting correction of citations or quotation formatting.
Requiring substantive rewriting or clarification.
Requesting disclosure of related publications or previous manuscript versions.
Requesting additional documentary evidence.
Suspending the review process while a significant concern is examined.
Seeking an independent assessment of disputed material.
Rejecting a manuscript when serious plagiarism or other material originality violations are substantiated.
Referring credible serious research misconduct concerns to an appropriate research institution or authorized body when formal investigation is necessary.

Editorial actions must not be determined solely by the numerical similarity percentage.

Where appropriate, the editor should explain the principal reasons for the decision and document the relevant assessment.

16. Suspected Plagiarism After Publication

JIEE acknowledges that concerns about plagiarism or the originality of research may emerge after an article has been published.

Post-publication allegations may arise from readers, authors, reviewers, researchers whose work has allegedly been copied, editorial personnel, or other credible sources.

The editorial office should assess such concerns according to the available evidence and their implications for the reliability and integrity of the published article.

The assessment may include:

Receiving and documenting the allegation.
Identifying the potentially affected material.
Obtaining relevant source publications or documentary evidence.
Evaluating the extent and significance of the alleged overlap.
Providing authors with an appropriate opportunity to respond.
Consulting independent expertise when necessary.
Determining the significance of the issue for the scholarly record.
Taking a proportionate post-publication action where justified.

Published articles must not be silently replaced to conceal serious originality concerns or substantive corrections.

17. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Post-publication actions must be determined according to the nature and consequences of the identified problem.

17.1. Correction

A correction may be appropriate when a limited attribution error or other correctable problem is identified and the overall findings and conclusions remain reliable.

The correction must clearly explain the relevant change and preserve transparency concerning the scholarly record.

17.2. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be considered when credible concerns significantly affect confidence in a published article but the available evidence remains unresolved or further investigation is necessary.

An Expression of Concern must not be used as a substitute for a justified final editorial action once sufficient evidence becomes available.

17.3. Retraction

Retraction may be appropriate where substantial plagiarism, unacceptable redundant publication, misappropriated research evidence, or another serious integrity violation undermines the article's reliability or the legitimacy of its publication.

Retraction decisions must be based on sufficient evidence and implemented through a transparent notice linked to the affected article.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record rather than serve automatically as a punishment.

18. Artificial Intelligence and Plagiarism Prevention

JIEE recognizes that AI-assisted tools can generate or transform scholarly text but may also produce inaccurate statements, fabricated references, or unattributed material.

Authors remain responsible for all content submitted under their names, including AI-assisted material.

Authors must:

Independently verify substantive AI-assisted content.
Confirm the existence and accuracy of all references.
Ensure appropriate attribution to original sources.
Review AI-generated text for possible inappropriate similarity.
Disclose substantive AI use in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Ensure that the manuscript makes genuine human scholarly contributions.

AI-generated material must not be used to fabricate research findings, disguise copied text, generate fictitious references, or evade originality assessment.

Automated AI-detection scores are not conclusive evidence of misconduct and must not independently determine editorial decisions.

19. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for implementing plagiarism screening and originality assessment fairly, consistently, and independently.

Editors must:

Understand the limitations of similarity detection software.
Review meaningful matches in context.
Differentiate legitimate similarity from inappropriate appropriation.
Apply the journal's publication ethics standards consistently.
Protect confidential manuscript information.
Request author clarification where justified.
Document important concerns and editorial actions.
Manage relevant conflicts of interest.
Avoid unsupported accusations of misconduct.
Refer serious concerns to appropriate institutions when necessary.

Editors must not use similarity reports selectively to favor or disadvantage particular authors.

The journal's originality standards apply equally to submissions involving editorial board members, institutional colleagues, or other individuals associated with the publisher.

20. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers should remain attentive to potential originality concerns encountered during scientific evaluation.

Reviewers who identify substantial unattributed overlap, suspicious duplication, or other credible integrity concerns must communicate the issue confidentially to the responsible editor.

Reviewers should provide specific information or relevant sources where possible.

Reviewers must not make public allegations, contact alleged original authors independently without appropriate editorial authorization, or disclose confidential manuscripts to unauthorized services.

Peer reviewers must comply with the journal's prohibition on using AI in the manuscript review process.

Reviewers may recommend additional examination but do not independently determine that misconduct has occurred.

21. Confidentiality and Protection of Research Materials

Similarity screening and the assessment of alleged plagiarism must respect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and protected research information.

Editors and authorized personnel must use appropriate institutional arrangements and approved tools for originality screening.

Manuscripts, reports, confidential correspondence, and supporting research information must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals.

Where a similarity screening service involves external processing or storage of manuscript content, its use must comply with applicable confidentiality, institutional, and data protection requirements.

Information concerning an unresolved allegation should be shared only with persons whose involvement is reasonably necessary for fair editorial assessment or authorized investigation.

22. Complaints, Appeals, and Fair Treatment

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe a plagiarism-related decision resulted from a material factual error, failure to consider relevant evidence, unmanaged conflict of interest, or significant procedural irregularity.

Appeals must identify the specific concern and provide relevant supporting information.

An appeal should be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or, where a conflict exists, another appropriately authorized independent editor.

Individuals reporting suspected plagiarism should provide sufficient information to enable meaningful assessment.

Concerns raised in good faith must be considered fairly and without retaliation.

The journal must distinguish malicious or unsupported allegations from credible evidence requiring further assessment.

Complaints and appeals may be submitted through the JIEE Editorial Office.

23. Relationship with Copyright and Open Access Licensing

JIEE publishes scholarly articles under its applicable open-access licensing arrangements, including the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Open access permits lawful reuse under the relevant license conditions but does not authorize misrepresentation of authorship or removal of required attribution.

Authors and other users must acknowledge intellectual contributions appropriately and comply with applicable license terms.

Even when a license permits reproduction or adaptation, scholarly citation remains necessary to avoid misleading representations of intellectual origin.

Relevant requirements are described in the journal's Copyright Notice and Open Access Policy.

24. Documentation and Quality Assurance

JIEE should maintain appropriate documentation of substantive similarity screening outcomes, author explanations, editorial assessments, and decisions relevant to manuscript originality.

Documentation may include:

Submission and manuscript version information.
Similarity screening records where retained under authorized arrangements.
Identification of significant matching sources.
Editorial explanations of substantive concerns.
Author responses and supporting information.
Relevant review or expert assessments.
Editorial decisions and corrective actions.
Post-publication notices where applicable.

Such documentation supports editorial accountability and legitimate quality assurance assessment.

Records must reflect actual procedures undertaken and must not be fabricated or retrospectively represented as having existed at an earlier stage.

25. Related Policies and International Guidance

This Plagiarism Policy is part of JIEE's integrated publication ethics framework and should be read in conjunction with:

Relevant international resources include:

These resources inform the journal's ethical approach. Their inclusion does not imply formal organizational membership, accreditation, certification, or endorsement.

26. Policy Adoption and Periodic Review

This Plagiarism Policy becomes effective following formal approval and publication by the responsible JIEE editorial management.

The editorial team should implement approved originality screening requirements consistently through manuscript submission, editorial evaluation, peer review, and post-publication assessment.

The journal should periodically review this policy in response to developments in publication ethics, similarity screening technologies, open-access licensing, and research integrity standards.

Substantive policy changes should be communicated transparently through the journal's official website.

JIEE is committed to protecting intellectual integrity through original scholarship, responsible attribution, transparent similarity screening, proportionate editorial action, and fair treatment of all parties.