Plagiarism Policy
Insights in Biology and Medicine maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism in all its forms. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and take all necessary measures to detect, prevent, and address plagiarism. This policy outlines our approach to identifying plagiarism, the procedures for handling suspected cases, and the sanctions that may be applied.
Definition of Plagiarism
Comprehensive Definition
Plagiarism constitutes the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This includes, but is not limited to:
| Plagiarism Type | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Verbatim Plagiarism | Copying text word-for-word without quotation marks or citation | Direct copying of sentences or paragraphs |
| Paraphrasing Plagiarism | Rewriting others' ideas without proper attribution | Changing words while maintaining original structure |
| Idea Plagiarism | Using others' concepts, hypotheses, or methodologies without credit | Adopting research approaches without citation |
| Self-Plagiarism | Reusing one's own previously published work without disclosure | Text recycling, duplicate publication |
| Mosaic Plagiarism | Combining phrases from multiple sources without proper integration | Patchwriting, combining sources improperly |
| Translation Plagiarism | Translating work from another language without attribution | Translating foreign language publications |
Plagiarism Detection Systems
Automated Screening
All submissions undergo comprehensive plagiarism screening using multiple systems:
iThenticate Software
Our primary plagiarism detection tool provides:
- Comparison against 70+ billion web pages
- Access to 165+ million scholarly articles
- Cross-language similarity detection
- Detailed similarity reports with color-coded matches
Crossref Similarity Check
Additional screening through the Crossref database:
- Comparison against content from participating publishers
- Detection of duplicate publication across journals
- Identification of text recycling patterns
Manual Assessment
In addition to automated tools, our editorial team conducts manual assessment:
Acceptable Similarity Thresholds
Similarity Index Guidelines
While we consider each case individually, the following guidelines inform our assessment:
| Similarity Range | Assessment | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| 0-15% | Generally acceptable | Routine editorial review |
| 15-25% | Requires careful examination | Detailed analysis of matched content |
| 25-40% | Potentially problematic | Author explanation required |
| 40%+ | High probability of plagiarism | Immediate investigation |
Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling
Author's Previous Work
We distinguish between acceptable reuse and problematic self-plagiarism:
Acceptable Reuse
- Standard methodological descriptions
- Brief background context when properly cited
- Previously published data with new analysis
- Conference abstracts expanded to full articles
Problematic Self-Plagiarism
- Substantial text recycling without new contribution
- Duplicate publication of same research
- Salami publication (splitting one study into multiple papers)
- Reusing results without proper citation
Disclosure Requirements
Authors must disclose any overlap with their previous work:
- Previous publications using the same data
- Conference presentations or proceedings
- Thesis or dissertation chapters
- Preprint server deposits
- Related manuscripts under review elsewhere
Plagiarism Investigation Procedure
Handling Suspected Plagiarism
Plagiarism is detected through automated screening or reviewer/editor identification. All evidence is documented, including similarity reports and specific examples.
The Editor-in-Chief assesses the severity and nature of the suspected plagiarism. Minor cases may be resolved through author education, while serious cases proceed to full investigation.
Authors are notified of the concerns and provided with specific evidence. They are given opportunity to respond within 14 days.
For serious allegations, an ad-hoc committee is formed with relevant expertise. The committee reviews all evidence and author responses.
The committee makes recommendations for appropriate actions, which may range from education to retraction and publishing bans.
Sanctions are implemented, and relevant parties are notified. Public notices are issued when appropriate.
Sanctions and Consequences
Level 1: Minor Infractions
Examples: Inadequate citation, minor text overlap, improper quotation
Actions: Require citation correction, author education, warning letter
Level 2: Moderate Infractions
Examples: Substantial paraphrasing without attribution, mosaic plagiarism
Actions: Manuscript rejection, temporary publishing ban (1-2 years), notification to institution
Level 3: Severe Infractions
Examples: Verbatim copying, idea theft, duplicate publication
Actions: Immediate retraction, permanent publishing ban, notification to all authors' institutions
Level 4: Egregious Infractions
Examples: Systematic plagiarism, fabrication involving plagiarism, commercial paper mills
Actions: Comprehensive retraction, reporting to national bodies, legal action consideration
Prevention and Education
Author Resources
We provide comprehensive resources to help authors avoid plagiarism:
Citation Management
- Guidance on proper citation practices
- Reference management software recommendations
- Examples of acceptable paraphrasing
- Quotation and attribution guidelines
Writing Support
- Access to professional editing services
- Writing workshops and tutorials
- Pre-submission checklist for originality
- Self-plagiarism avoidance guidance
Educational Initiatives
We actively promote academic integrity through:
- Regular workshops on publication ethics
- Collaboration with institutional research integrity offices
- Development of educational materials
- Mentorship programs for early-career researchers
Case Examples and Precedents
Case 1: Unintentional Paraphrasing
Situation: Author paraphrased three paragraphs from a review article without proper citation. Similarity index showed 18% match.
Resolution: Manuscript rejected with detailed feedback. Author required to complete plagiarism prevention training before future submissions.
Outcome: Author resubmitted revised manuscript with proper citations after six months. Article eventually published.
Case 2: Duplicate Publication
Situation: Author submitted manuscript that was 85% identical to their previously published article in another journal.
Resolution: Immediate rejection and two-year publishing ban. Notification sent to author's institution and original journal.
Outcome: Original journal issued correction notice. Author completed rehabilitation program.
Case 3: Translation Plagiarism
Situation: Author translated substantial portions of a German-language article without attribution.
Resolution: Manuscript rejected and permanent ban from journal. Reported to COPE and author's national research integrity body.
Outcome: Institutional investigation launched, resulting in suspension of research privileges.
Appeals Process
Appeal Procedure
Authors may appeal plagiarism decisions within 30 days by submitting formal appeal with new evidence or explanation.
Appeal is reviewed by committee not involved in original decision, including external experts when appropriate.
Committee may conduct additional analysis, consult language experts, or seek third-party verification.
Appeal committee makes binding decision, which may uphold, modify, or overturn original sanctions.
International and Cross-Cultural Considerations
Cultural Sensitivity
We recognize that plagiarism standards may vary across educational systems and cultures:
Support for International Authors
- Multilingual resources on academic integrity
- Culturally sensitive educational materials
- Consideration of different citation traditions
- Support for authors whose first language is not English
Unacceptable Justifications
- Cultural differences in citation practices
- Lack of awareness of plagiarism standards
- Pressure to publish in international journals
- Language barriers in writing and citation
Technology and Tool Updates
Continuous Improvement
We continuously enhance our plagiarism detection capabilities:
| Technology | Implementation | Benefits |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Powered Detection | Machine learning algorithms for pattern recognition | Improved identification of sophisticated plagiarism |
| Cross-Language Analysis | Translation-based similarity detection | Identification of translation plagiarism |
| Image Plagiarism Tools | Visual similarity detection for figures and images | Detection of reused visual content |
| Blockchain Verification | Timestamping and verification of original content | Establishment of content provenance |
Collaboration and Reporting
Industry Cooperation
We actively collaborate with other stakeholders to combat plagiarism:
- COPE Membership: Follow Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines
- Cross-Publisher Cooperation: Share information about serial offenders
- Institutional Partnerships: Work with universities on prevention
- Technology Providers: Collaborate on tool development and improvement
Reporting Suspected Plagiarism: Readers, reviewers, or other stakeholders who suspect plagiarism in published articles should contact our plagiarism committee immediately at [email protected]. All reports are treated confidentially and investigated promptly.
Educational Resources: Authors seeking guidance on avoiding plagiarism can access our resources at https://www.biologymedjournal.com/plagiarism-prevention
Policy Review: This plagiarism policy is reviewed annually and updated as needed to reflect evolving standards and technologies.