Plagiarism and Similarity Policy

International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) ISSN (Online): 2321-3418 | DOI Prefix: 10.18535/ijsrm Publisher: Valley International

1. Principle

Every manuscript submitted to IJSRM must be the original work of its authors. Presenting someone else's words, ideas, data, figures, or arguments as one's own — whether deliberately or through careless referencing — is plagiarism, and the journal treats it as a serious breach of research integrity.

The journal's response follows the COPE Core Practices and the relevant COPE flowcharts for suspected plagiarism in submitted and published manuscripts.

2. Forms of Plagiarism Covered

• Verbatim copying — reproducing text from another source without quotation marks and citation.
• Paraphrasing without attribution — restating another author's ideas or argument in different words while omitting the citation.
• Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism — assembling a passage from phrases taken from several sources, with or without light rewording.
• Self-plagiarism (text recycling) — reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without citing it. Reuse of methods sections is treated more leniently than reuse of introductions, results, or discussion, but must still be disclosed and cited.
• Duplicate or redundant publication — submitting or publishing the same study, in whole or in substantial part, more than once, in any language. Translation does not make a work new.
• Data, image, and figure plagiarism — reproducing tables, figures, images, or datasets from another source without permission and attribution.
• Plagiarism of ideas — using an unpublished idea obtained through peer review, a grant application, or private communication without permission and credit.

3. Screening Procedure

At submission. Every manuscript is screened with professional similarity-detection software before it is sent for peer review. The editorial office examines the resulting report in full; the software identifies matching text, but the judgement about whether that text constitutes plagiarism is made by an editor.

During review. Reviewers are asked to report any suspected overlap with published work, and may bring specific sources to the editor's attention.

After acceptance and after publication. Concerns raised at any later stage are investigated on the same basis. Publication does not close the matter.

4. How Similarity Is Assessed

A similarity percentage is an indicator, not a verdict. IJSRM does not apply a single numerical cut-off, because a similarity index can be misleading in both directions: a manuscript may score 25% entirely on correctly quoted and cited material, standard methodological phrasing, instrument names, and the reference list; another may score 8% and contain a copied paragraph that carries the paper's central argument.

Editors therefore assess:

• Where the matching text sits. Overlap in the introduction, results, or discussion is far more serious than overlap in a methods description or a standard definition.
• What is matched. A single continuous copied passage is more serious than the same volume of text scattered across common phrases.
• Whether the source is cited. Properly quoted and attributed material is not plagiarism, however much of it there is — though excessive quotation is a writing problem the editor may still ask authors to fix.
• Whether the overlap is avoidable. Titles of instruments, names of assays, legal provisions, and standard clinical definitions often cannot be reworded.
• Exclusions. The reference list, quotations, and correctly attributed common phrases are excluded before the index is interpreted.

As practical guidance for authors: an overall index below 15%, with no single source contributing more than about 5% and no unattributed continuous passage, will normally pass screening. A higher index does not automatically mean rejection, and a lower one does not automatically mean the manuscript is clear.

5. Outcomes at Submission Stage

Depending on the editor's assessment:

• No significant concern — the manuscript proceeds to peer review.
• Minor or attributable overlap — the authors are asked to revise, rewrite, or add citations before the manuscript moves forward. This is the usual outcome for careless referencing.
• Substantial unattributed overlap — the manuscript is rejected. The authors are told the reason and shown the matched sources.
• Evident deliberate plagiarism or duplicate submission — the manuscript is rejected, and the journal may decline further submissions from the authors and, where the case is serious, inform their institution.

In every case, authors are given the opportunity to explain before a final decision is taken. An explanation may reveal a legitimate reason for overlap — a preprint, a conference abstract, a thesis chapter — that the editor was unaware of.

6. Legitimate Prior Dissemination

The following do not count as prior publication, provided they are disclosed at submission:

• deposit of the manuscript on a recognised preprint server;
• a conference abstract or poster;
• a chapter of the author's own thesis or dissertation;
• a clinical trial registry record.

Authors must declare these in the cover letter and cite them in the manuscript. Failure to disclose is itself a breach, even where the underlying activity was legitimate.

7. Cases Arising After Publication

Where plagiarism, duplicate publication, or copyright infringement is alleged in a published article:

1. The editorial office acknowledges the concern and assesses the evidence.
2. The corresponding author is contacted, shown the specific evidence, and given a reasonable period — normally 21 days — to respond on behalf of all authors.
3. Where the response does not resolve the concern, the case is referred to the journal's Editorial Board for a full inquiry, which may involve the authors' institution or an independent expert.
4. The outcome is a correction where the overlap is limited and the findings remain reliable, or a retraction where the article is substantially plagiarised or duplicates earlier work. An expression of concern may be published while the inquiry is ongoing.

Notices are published in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, carry their own DOI, and are linked bidirectionally with the original article. A retracted article is not removed from the site: it remains available, clearly watermarked as retracted, with a notice explaining the reason. Crossref and indexing services are notified.

Where misconduct is established, the journal informs the authors' institution and, where relevant, the funding agency. The Article Processing Charge is not refunded in cases of established misconduct.

8. Authors' Responsibility

The corresponding author is responsible, on behalf of all co-authors, for ensuring that the manuscript is original, that every source is properly cited, that permission has been obtained for any reproduced third-party material, and that any related prior work by the same authors is disclosed. Authors are encouraged to run their own similarity check before submitting.

9. Appeals

Authors who consider that a plagiarism decision was reached in error may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, addressing the specific matched material. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

10. Contact

Editorial Office — International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) Website: https://ijsrm.net | Email: editor@ijsrm.net