Screening for Plagiarism

Screening for Plagiarism

Language, Technology, and Social Media (LTSM) is committed to protecting the originality, integrity, and reliability of the scholarly record. Manuscripts may be screened for textual overlap and other forms of inappropriate duplication before publication and, where necessary, after publication.

A similarity percentage is not, by itself, proof of plagiarism. Similarity reports are screening tools that support editorial judgment. Editors evaluate the source, context, extent, attribution, location, and scholarly significance of identified overlap before reaching a decision.

1. Purpose of Similarity Screening

Similarity screening is used to help identify potentially inappropriate overlap between a submitted manuscript and previously published or publicly available material. Its purpose is to support fair and consistent assessment of originality and to protect authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and the scholarly record.

Screening may identify copied text, unattributed paraphrasing, redundant publication, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate material, or other forms of overlap requiring editorial assessment.

2. Similarity-Detection System

Manuscripts submitted to LTSM may be screened using Turnitin or another appropriate similarity-detection system approved by the journal.

Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team and are not used as automated acceptance or rejection decisions.

3. Interpretation of Similarity Scores

LTSM does not regard a single numerical similarity percentage as a universal definition of plagiarism.

When assessing a similarity report, editors may consider:

• the amount of overlapping material;
• the source or sources from which overlap originates;
• whether appropriate citation and attribution are provided;
• whether verbatim wording is properly identified where required;
• the location of overlapping text within the manuscript;
• whether data, results, tables, figures, ideas, or interpretations have been reproduced;
• whether overlap represents standard technical or methodological language;
• whether the manuscript substantially duplicates the authors' previous work; and
• whether the overlap could mislead readers regarding originality or authorship.

Internal similarity indicators may be used to prioritise manuscripts for closer review, but final decisions are based on the nature and seriousness of the overlap, not solely on a software-generated percentage.

4. What LTSM Considers Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when words, ideas, arguments, data, images, results, methods, structures, or other intellectual material created by another person or source are presented without appropriate acknowledgement or in a manner that misleadingly implies originality.

Examples may include:

• copying substantial text without quotation or appropriate attribution;
• paraphrasing another person's ideas too closely without citation;
• presenting another person's argument, interpretation, method, or conceptual framework as one's own;
• reproducing tables, figures, images, datasets, or other material without appropriate attribution or permission where required;
• using translated material from another source without acknowledgement;
• mosaic or patchwork plagiarism created by combining material from multiple sources without adequate attribution;
• appropriating unpublished material obtained through confidential review, supervision, collaboration, or communication; and
• using fabricated, misleading, or deliberately incorrect citations to conceal the source of borrowed material.

5. Quotation, Paraphrasing, and Attribution

Citation alone does not necessarily justify extensive reproduction of another author's wording. When words are reproduced directly, quotation or another academically appropriate method of identifying verbatim material should be used where required by disciplinary convention.

Paraphrasing must reflect genuine reformulation and understanding rather than minor substitution, rearrangement, or mechanical rewriting of the original source.

Authors must cite the original source when an idea, argument, interpretation, analytical framework, method, or other identifiable intellectual contribution has been derived from that source, even when the material has been paraphrased.

6. Text Recycling and Redundant Publication

Reuse of an author's own previously disseminated material is assessed separately from plagiarism of another person's work but may still raise concerns regarding redundant publication, copyright, transparency, or originality.

Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions may sometimes be legitimate, particularly when there are few accurate ways to describe a procedure. However, authors must not reproduce substantial portions of previously published text, results, data, discussion, or conclusions in a manner that misleadingly presents the material as new.

Authors must disclose closely related publications, conference papers, preprints, reports, theses, dissertations, datasets, or other materials that substantially overlap with the submitted manuscript.

7. Preprints, Theses, Conference Papers, and Repository Versions

Similarity with a legitimate earlier version of the author's work does not automatically constitute plagiarism or duplicate publication.

Where relevant, authors should transparently disclose prior dissemination such as:

• preprints;
• conference abstracts or proceedings;
• working papers;
• institutional or technical reports;
• theses and dissertations;
• repository versions; and
• other closely related scholarly outputs.

The editorial team will determine whether the submitted manuscript provides sufficient new scholarly contribution and whether prior dissemination is compatible with the journal's originality requirements.

8. When Screening May Be Conducted

Similarity screening may be conducted at one or more stages of the editorial process:

9. Editorial Response to Identified Overlap

Editorial action will depend on the nature, extent, context, and seriousness of the identified overlap.

10. Plagiarism Identified After Publication

Allegations concerning a published article will be assessed even when the concern is raised after publication.

Where necessary, the journal may request an explanation from the authors, review the original sources, obtain independent expert advice, request underlying data or documentation, and contact relevant institutions or research-integrity bodies.

Depending on the findings, post-publication action may include:

• no further action where the concern is not substantiated;
• a correction or clarification;
• an expression of concern while a significant investigation remains unresolved;
• retraction where published work is seriously compromised; or
• other appropriate editorial action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

Relevant post-publication actions will be handled in accordance with the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy .

11. Fair Process

A software-generated similarity report does not establish misconduct by itself. Where significant concerns arise, authors should normally be given an opportunity to provide an explanation or relevant documentation before a final determination is made, except where immediate editorial action is necessary to protect the journal or scholarly record.

The journal distinguishes between honest error, poor citation practice, inappropriate text recycling, and deliberate plagiarism where the available evidence permits such a distinction.

Editorial responses should be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and consistent with established research-integrity principles.

12. Author Responsibility

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript is original, properly attributed, and compliant with applicable copyright and publication ethics requirements before submission.

Authors should verify quotations, citations, paraphrases, figures, tables, datasets, images, and all other third-party material carefully rather than relying solely on similarity-detection software.

13. Publication-Ethics Framework

LTSM's approach to plagiarism and textual overlap is informed by internationally recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

Reference to COPE guidance indicates the ethical framework used by the journal and does not, by itself, constitute a claim of COPE membership.

Research Integrity and Editorial Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal's other research-integrity and publication-ethics policies.

14. Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other parties may report credible concerns regarding plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate text recycling, or other potentially problematic overlap in submitted or published material.

Reports should identify the manuscript or article concerned and provide sufficient information, sources, or supporting evidence to enable editorial assessment.

LTSM combines similarity-detection technology with informed editorial assessment. The journal does not equate similarity mechanically with plagiarism and evaluates each concern according to its scholarly context, seriousness, and effect on the integrity of the work.