Plagiarism Policy

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Advanced Science Computing and Engineering (IJASCE) is committed to publishing original scholarship and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism or the misrepresentation of previously published material, ideas, data, images, code, or other intellectual contributions as original work.

IJASCE uses similarity-detection software as a screening tool and evaluates identified overlap through editorial assessment. This policy is informed by the COPE Core Practices, COPE guidance on plagiarism and redundant publication, the COPE Text Recycling Guidelines, and the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to IJASCE and to concerns identified after publication. It covers, as applicable:

  • plagiarism of text, ideas, data, images, figures, tables, code, or other intellectual material;

  • inadequately attributed paraphrasing or translation of material from another source;

  • text recycling from an author's own previously published work;

  • redundant or duplicate publication involving previously published data, findings, analyses, or substantially overlapping work;

  • reuse of copyrighted material without appropriate acknowledgment or permission where permission is required; and

  • other forms of inappropriate or misleading overlap that may affect the originality, attribution, or integrity of a manuscript.

3. Policy Statement and Guidelines

IJASCE defines plagiarism as the presentation of another person's words, ideas, data, images, code, methods, interpretations, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment in a manner that represents them as the author's own.

Plagiarism may involve published or unpublished material and may occur through direct copying, inadequate paraphrasing, unattributed translation, inappropriate reuse of figures or data, or other forms of misrepresentation.

IJASCE distinguishes plagiarism from text recycling and redundant or duplicate publication. These practices may raise different ethical concerns and therefore require different editorial assessments and responses.

3.1 Similarity Screening

IJASCE currently uses Turnitin as a similarity-screening tool. Submitted manuscripts are normally screened before external peer review, and additional similarity checks may be conducted at later stages when necessary.

A similarity report identifies textual matches between a manuscript and material available in the screening system. A similarity report does not independently determine whether plagiarism has occurred. Editors must examine the matched material and its context before reaching an editorial conclusion.

3.2 Interpretation of Similarity Reports

IJASCE does not use a fixed similarity percentage as an automatic acceptance or rejection threshold. The overall similarity score is considered a screening indicator rather than evidence of plagiarism.

When evaluating identified overlap, editors consider factors including:

  • the source of the matched material;

  • the amount and concentration of the overlap;

  • the section of the manuscript in which the overlap occurs;

  • whether the original source has been appropriately acknowledged;

  • whether the overlap consists of standard terminology, commonly used expressions, properly cited material, or technical descriptions for which wording options may be limited;

  • whether the overlap involves methods, results, interpretations, conclusions, data, figures, or other material central to the originality of the work;

  • whether previously published material has been represented as new; and

  • whether the overlap raises copyright, duplicate publication, or other research integrity concerns.

Authors may be asked to explain identified overlap, provide relevant source material, add missing attribution, revise inappropriate overlap, or clarify the relationship between the submitted manuscript and earlier publications.

Significant or misleading unattributed overlap may result in rejection. Minor or legitimate overlap may require no action or may be addressed through revision, depending on its nature and context.

3.3 Plagiarism

Examples of unacceptable plagiarism include:

  • Verbatim copying of another person's text without appropriate quotation, citation, or acknowledgment;

  • Inadequate paraphrasing in which wording is changed superficially but another person's ideas or expression are used without appropriate attribution;

  • Translation plagiarism in which material from a source in another language is translated and presented without citation or acknowledgment;

  • Idea plagiarism in which another person's original concept, interpretation, method, or intellectual contribution is presented without appropriate acknowledgment;

  • Data, figure, image, table, or code plagiarism involving reuse of another person's material without proper attribution and, where required, permission; and

  • use of unpublished material obtained through confidential processes such as peer review without authorization and acknowledgment.

3.4 Text Recycling

Text recycling occurs when authors reuse portions of text from their own previously published work, usually without adequate acknowledgment. It is sometimes referred to as "self-plagiarism," although IJASCE prefers the more precise term text recycling.

Text recycling is not evaluated in the same manner as plagiarism of another person's work. IJASCE assesses each case according to the extent and location of the reused material, whether the earlier source is cited, whether copyright is affected, and whether the reuse could mislead readers concerning the originality of the manuscript.

Limited overlap in descriptions of established methods may sometimes be unavoidable, particularly where there are few accurate ways to describe a procedure. Authors should nevertheless cite earlier publications when methods or other material have been previously described and should avoid presenting previously published material as new.

Substantial recycling in the Results, Discussion, or Conclusion sections requires greater scrutiny because it may indicate that previously published findings or interpretations are being presented as original.

3.5 Redundant or Duplicate Publication

Redundant or duplicate publication is distinct from text recycling. It generally involves substantial repetition of previously published data, results, analyses, conclusions, or other substantive content without sufficient disclosure or justification.

Authors must disclose related manuscripts, previous publications, preprints, conference papers, or other potentially overlapping works when these are relevant to the submitted manuscript. Related publications must be appropriately cited, and the manuscript must clearly identify the new contribution.

Where overlap involves previously published data or results, editors will assess whether the submission constitutes legitimate extension of earlier work or inappropriate redundant publication and will apply relevant COPE guidance.

3.6 Legitimate Reuse and Acceptable Overlap

Textual overlap does not automatically constitute plagiarism. Examples that may be legitimate when appropriately handled include:

  • properly attributed quotations;

  • standard terminology and commonly used technical expressions;

  • appropriately attributed descriptions of established methods;

  • limited reuse of an author's previously described methods when transparency and citation are provided;

  • material reused under an appropriate license or with required permission and attribution; and

  • minor, non-substantive textual similarities that do not misrepresent the originality or source of the work.

Citation alone does not automatically make extensive verbatim copying or substantial reuse acceptable. Editors will consider whether the amount and nature of reused material are appropriate to the scientific purpose and whether the manuscript provides a sufficiently original contribution.

4. Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts accurately acknowledge the sources of words, ideas, data, images, code, methods, and other material. Authors must disclose relevant previous or overlapping publications and respond fully to editorial questions concerning identified similarities.

Editors are responsible for interpreting similarity reports in context and applying the journal's policies consistently and fairly. Editors should not treat a software-generated similarity percentage as proof of plagiarism or as the sole basis for an editorial decision.

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor when they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, unattributed material, or other significant overlap that may not have been identified during initial screening. Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding such concerns.

5. Handling Suspected Breaches

5.1 Concerns Identified Before Publication

When potentially inappropriate overlap is identified in a submitted manuscript, IJASCE will conduct an editorial assessment of the available evidence. The journal will normally seek clarification from the authors when the concern is sufficiently substantive and the appropriate course of action is not immediately clear.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, editorial actions may include:

  • taking no further action when the overlap is legitimate or insignificant;

  • requesting correction of attribution, rewriting, or clarification;

  • requesting disclosure and citation of related publications;

  • requiring further editorial or ethical assessment;

  • rejecting the manuscript when plagiarism, substantial inappropriate overlap, or redundant publication materially compromises its originality or integrity; or

  • referring a sufficiently serious and substantiated concern to the relevant institution or other competent body when formal investigation is warranted.

IJASCE distinguishes its editorial assessment from a formal investigation of research misconduct. Where such an investigation is required, responsibility normally rests with the author's institution or another competent authority.

5.2 Concerns Identified After Publication

When plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, or other significant overlap is identified after publication, IJASCE will assess the reliability, originality, attribution, and integrity of the published record and will apply relevant COPE guidance.

Depending on the findings and the effect of the problem on the article, actions may include:

  • no amendment when the concern is not substantiated or does not require correction of the scholarly record;

  • a correction when the article remains substantially reliable but attribution, disclosure, or limited overlapping material requires amendment;

  • an expression of concern when serious unresolved concerns require readers to be alerted while further information is being obtained; or

  • retraction when plagiarism, redundant publication, unreliable findings, or another serious problem substantially undermines the integrity or reliability of the published article.

Post-publication actions are intended to maintain an accurate and reliable scholarly record and are not primarily punitive measures.

5.3 Institutional Communication and Sanctions

IJASCE does not automatically notify an author's institution solely because a similarity report identifies substantial overlap. Institutional communication may be appropriate when a serious and sufficiently substantiated concern requires formal investigation, when an author's response does not adequately resolve the concern, or when other circumstances justify institutional involvement under relevant COPE guidance.

IJASCE does not use automatic or permanent author blacklisting as a standard response to plagiarism or text overlap. Decisions concerning future submissions will be handled carefully and proportionately, with due consideration of the evidence, applicable journal policies, and relevant COPE guidance.

6. Related Policies and References

7. Review and Updates

This policy was reviewed in September 2026. IJASCE will review and update the policy periodically to reflect developments in COPE guidance, research integrity standards, editorial practice, and similarity-screening technologies.