Plagiarism, Similarity & Publication Misconduct Policy

  • Every submitted manuscript shall undergo similarity screening before or during initial editorial assessment.
  • The similarity report shall be reviewed by an authorised editor or trained editorial staff member before a manuscript is sent for peer review, except where the Editor-in-Chief authorises an alternative sequence for a specific article type.
  • The report shall be assessed for the total similarity percentage, individual source matches, location of matches, and the nature of the overlapping text.
  • The journal may rescreen a revised manuscript where substantial textual changes have been made or where concerns remain.
  • Similarity reports and editorial actions shall be retained in the manuscript record in accordance with the journal's record-retention procedures.

Applicable Similarity Threshold

JBUMDC accepts manuscripts with a total similarity index of less than 19%, provided that the similarity is appropriately assessed and does not indicate plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse.

A similarity index of 19% or above will trigger a detailed qualitative assessment by the editorial team before the manuscript is considered for further processing. The similarity percentage alone shall not be considered conclusive evidence of plagiarism. Editors examine the sources, location, nature and context of the matched text, including legitimate similarity arising from references, standard methodological descriptions, technical terminology, properly cited material, and other unavoidable overlap.

Where the similarity is considered excessive, inappropriate, or indicative of plagiarism or duplicate publication, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for correction, placed on hold for investigation, or rejected in accordance with the JBUMDC Plagiarism and Ethical Writing Policy.

Qualitative Assessment of Similarity

A similarity index of 19% or above requires documented editorial assessment; however, the final decision shall be based on the nature and context of the matched content rather than the numerical percentage alone.

Editors shall distinguish legitimate textual overlap from inappropriate duplication. Legitimate overlap may include:

  • References and bibliographic material.
  • Standard scientific or technical terminology.
  • Standard descriptions of established methods, protocols or instruments.
  • Required reporting language, ethical statements or regulatory terminology.
  • Properly quoted and appropriately cited material.
  • Text arising from an author's own previously published work where reuse is permitted and transparently cited, subject to the journal's rules on duplicate publication and self-plagiarism.

Editors shall give particular attention to:

  • Uncited or inadequately cited verbatim text.
  • Reproduction of discussion, conclusions, figures, tables or data without attribution or permission where required.
  • Similarity concentrated in the introduction, discussion or conclusions that cannot reasonably be explained by standard terminology.
  • Evidence suggesting duplicate or redundant publication.

Single-Source Similarity

Individual-source similarity less than 5% shall be reviewed separately from the overall percentage. A concentrated match from a single source may require closer examination even where the overall percentage is low. Conversely, multiple small and legitimate matches may produce a higher overall percentage without constituting plagiarism.

Similarity in Revised and Accepted Manuscripts

  • Authors may be required to revise text that creates avoidable similarity before acceptance.
  • A revised manuscript will be rescreened when the editor considers this necessary.
  • Material changes made after acceptance shall remain subject to editorial integrity checks.
  • Similarity concerns discovered after publication shall be assessed under the journal's correction, expression-of-concern and retraction procedures.

Responsibilities of Editors

  • Interpret similarity reports critically rather than relying solely on an automated percentage.
  • Document the rationale for returning, rejecting or progressing a manuscript where similarity is a material consideration.
  • Maintain confidentiality of similarity reports and related correspondence.
  • Avoid discriminatory or inconsistent application of similarity screening across authors or institutions.
  • Escalate serious concerns in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and relevant COPE guidance.

AI-Assisted Text and Similarity Assessment

Similarity screening and AI-content screening are separate editorial checks. The journal may conduct both where appropriate. AI-generated or AI-paraphrased text does not become acceptable merely because it produces a low similarity score. Concerns about undisclosed or inappropriate AI use shall be handled under the JBUMDC Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy.

Author Responsibilities

  • Authors must submit original work and appropriately cite all sources.
  • Authors must not use paraphrasing tools or other methods to conceal copied material.
  • Authors must disclose relevant prior publication and text reuse where required.
  • Authors must respond promptly and transparently to editorial queries arising from similarity screening.
  • Submission of a manuscript constitutes agreement to similarity screening and related publication-integrity checks.

 

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals shall be assessed on the evidence, the nature of the matched text and the applicable policy. Where the original decision involved a conflict of interest, the appeal shall be considered by an independent editor or other authorised person not involved in the original decision.

Record Retention and Audit Trail

  • A copy or appropriate record of the similarity report shall be retained with the manuscript file.
  • The editorial record should indicate the date of screening, the person who assessed the report and the action taken.
  • Where a manuscript is returned, rejected or escalated because of similarity, the rationale and relevant correspondence should be retained.
  • Records shall be available for internal quality assurance or regulatory review where required, subject to confidentiality and applicable data-protection requirements.

Post-Publication Similarity Concerns

Allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication or substantial unattributed overlap identified after publication shall be investigated promptly. Depending on the findings, JBUMDC may issue a correction, clarification, expression of concern or retraction, following the journal's publication-ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

Alignment with International and National Guidance

This policy is intended to operate consistently with the applicable HEC policy and recognised publication-ethics guidance, including:

Policy Review

The Editorial Board shall review this policy at least every two years and whenever HEC or relevant international publication-ethics guidance is revised. Any change to the applicable similarity threshold shall be reflected promptly on the journal website and in the editorial workflow.

Implementation Statement

JBUMDC recognises that similarity screening is an aid to editorial judgment rather than a substitute for expert assessment. The journal therefore combines automated screening with documented qualitative evaluation to protect authors from false-positive interpretation while maintaining a strict approach to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification and other forms of publication misconduct.