Anti-Plagiarism Policy

The Indonesian Education Policy and Justice Review (IEPJR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and responsible scholarly communication. Plagiarism and other forms of inappropriate appropriation of intellectual work are considered serious violations of publication ethics and are not acceptable.

This policy is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other internationally recognized standards of research and publication integrity.

1. Definition of Plagiarism

For the purposes of IEPJR, plagiarism refers to the presentation, reproduction, appropriation, or use of another person's intellectual work without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution.

Plagiarism may involve, but is not limited to:

  • copying words, sentences, paragraphs, or substantial portions of another work without appropriate citation;

  • presenting another person's ideas, arguments, theories, concepts, findings, or interpretations as one's own;

  • reproducing tables, figures, diagrams, photographs, datasets, or other materials without appropriate attribution or permission where required;

  • translating another person's published or unpublished work and presenting the translated material without proper acknowledgment;

  • inappropriate paraphrasing that substantially reproduces the structure or expression of another source without adequate attribution; and

  • using AI-generated or machine-generated content that reproduces or appropriates another person's intellectual work without appropriate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism applies to published and unpublished materials, including journal articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, theses, dissertations, reports, working papers, websites, datasets, and other scholarly or publicly available sources.

2. Related Forms of Academic Misconduct

IEPJR also considers the following practices to be serious breaches of academic integrity:

a. Duplicate or redundant publication
Submitting or publishing substantially the same research or manuscript in more than one journal without appropriate disclosure or justification.

b. Self-plagiarism
Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without appropriate citation, disclosure, or justification.

c. Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism
Combining phrases, sentences, structures, or ideas from multiple sources in a way that reproduces their intellectual expression without adequate attribution.

d. Data or figure appropriation
Using data, tables, figures, images, or other research materials produced by others without appropriate acknowledgment or permission.

e. Citation manipulation
Using misleading, excessive, irrelevant, or strategically inappropriate citations to conceal the source of ideas or artificially influence citation metrics.

f. Translation plagiarism
Translating previously published material into another language and presenting it as original work without appropriate attribution or disclosure.

3. Similarity Screening

All submitted manuscripts may be subject to similarity screening using appropriate plagiarism-detection or text-comparison software.

Similarity screening may be conducted:

  • during initial editorial screening;

  • before peer review;

  • during the revision process; or

  • before final publication.

The purpose of similarity screening is to identify passages that require further editorial or ethical assessment.

A similarity percentage is not, by itself, evidence of plagiarism. The editorial team will assess the nature, location, extent, and context of detected similarities. Legitimate similarities, such as references, technical terminology, standard methodological descriptions, commonly used expressions, quotations, and appropriately cited material, may contribute to a similarity score without constituting plagiarism.

4. Editorial Assessment

When substantial similarity is identified, the editors may:

  1. request an explanation or clarification from the authors;

  2. request revision and appropriate attribution;

  3. conduct additional checks against the original sources;

  4. consult reviewers or members of the Editorial Board;

  5. request supporting documentation where necessary; or

  6. initiate a research-integrity investigation when there is credible evidence of misconduct.

Editorial decisions will consider the severity, extent, intent, context, and scholarly significance of the suspected plagiarism.

5. Plagiarism Detected Before Publication

If plagiarism or significant unattributed overlap is identified before publication, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

  • request correction and proper attribution;

  • require substantial revision;

  • reject the manuscript;

  • reject the manuscript and restrict immediate resubmission where appropriate; or

  • refer the matter to the relevant institution or authority when serious misconduct is suspected.

Minor instances of inadequate attribution may, depending on their nature and context, be addressed through correction or revision. Serious or systematic plagiarism may result in immediate rejection.

6. Plagiarism Detected After Publication

If credible evidence of plagiarism emerges after publication, IEPJR will investigate the matter in accordance with applicable COPE principles and research-integrity procedures.

Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the journal may:

  • publish a correction or clarification;

  • issue an Expression of Concern;

  • retract the article;

  • amend the published record where appropriate;

  • notify the relevant institution or research organization; or

  • take other corrective action necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Retractions will be clearly identified and linked to the original publication where technically possible, ensuring transparency for readers and indexing services.

7. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all submitted manuscripts are original and that all sources of ideas, words, data, images, figures, and other intellectual contributions are properly acknowledged.

Before submission, authors should:

  • verify that all quotations are accurately cited;

  • provide appropriate references for paraphrased ideas;

  • obtain permission for copyrighted material where required;

  • disclose relevant previous publications containing overlapping material;

  • ensure that previously published material is not presented as new research; and

  • review the manuscript for inappropriate textual or conceptual overlap.

Authors remain responsible for the originality and integrity of their manuscripts regardless of whether plagiarism is detected by automated screening tools.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence

The use of generative AI or other automated tools does not exempt authors from responsibility for plagiarism or improper attribution.

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted content:

  • does not reproduce copyrighted or unpublished material without appropriate attribution;

  • does not introduce fabricated or misleading references;

  • does not misrepresent another person's ideas as original;

  • does not compromise the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts or research data; and

  • complies with the journal's Publication Ethics and AI Use Policy.

AI-generated text that substantially reproduces another author's work without appropriate acknowledgment may be treated as plagiarism.

9. Fair Investigation and Due Process

IEPJR recognizes that similarity detection may identify legitimate scholarly overlap. Therefore, allegations of plagiarism are not treated as established misconduct solely on the basis of an automated similarity report.

The journal will provide authors with an appropriate opportunity to explain or respond to substantive concerns where necessary. Investigations will be conducted fairly, confidentially, and without prejudgment.

Where the evidence indicates possible serious research misconduct beyond the journal's ability to investigate independently, IEPJR may refer the matter to the relevant institution, research ethics body, or other appropriate authority.

10. Commitment to Academic Integrity

IEPJR considers originality and proper attribution fundamental to trustworthy scholarship. The journal therefore applies a zero-tolerance approach to deliberate or systematic plagiarism, while recognizing the need for proportionate, evidence-based assessment of similarity findings.

Through this policy, IEPJR seeks to protect authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and the wider scholarly community while maintaining the integrity, credibility, and reliability of the academic record.

 

Plagiarism Investigation Procedures

IEPJR applies a structured and evidence-based procedure for investigating suspected plagiarism and other forms of unattributed intellectual appropriation. The procedure is designed to ensure fairness, confidentiality, proportionality, due process, and protection of the integrity of the scholarly record. Investigations are informed by relevant principles and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

A similarity report or allegation of plagiarism does not, by itself, constitute a finding of misconduct. The editorial team assesses the evidence, context, extent, and nature of the suspected overlap before taking an editorial or ethical decision.

1. Sources of Plagiarism Allegations

Potential plagiarism may be identified through:

  • routine similarity screening conducted by the journal;

  • concerns raised by peer reviewers or editors;

  • post-publication notifications from readers or researchers;

  • reports from authors or other members of the scholarly community;

  • information provided by publishers, institutions, or research organizations; or

  • other credible sources of evidence.

All allegations should, where possible, be accompanied by sufficient information or documentary evidence to enable the editorial team to assess the concern.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

When a potential case of plagiarism is identified, the handling editor conducts a preliminary assessment.

The assessment considers:

  • the source and reliability of the allegation;

  • the extent and location of the suspected overlap;

  • whether the overlapping material consists of ideas, wording, data, figures, tables, or other intellectual content;

  • whether the source has been properly cited or acknowledged;

  • whether the material is quoted or paraphrased appropriately;

  • whether the overlap is legitimate because of technical terminology, standard methodological language, legal or policy terminology, or other unavoidable similarities;

  • whether the overlap involves the authors' own previously published work; and

  • whether the suspected conduct appears isolated, substantial, systematic, or intentional.

Where appropriate, the editor may conduct additional searches using the relevant original sources rather than relying exclusively on automated similarity results.

3. Similarity Report Assessment

IEPJR does not apply a single universal similarity-percentage threshold as an automatic basis for rejection.

Similarity scores are interpreted in context because a high score may result from legitimate references, quotations, standardized terminology, methodological descriptions, legal provisions, institutional names, or other unavoidable textual similarities. Conversely, substantial plagiarism may exist even when the overall similarity percentage is relatively low.

The editorial assessment therefore focuses on the substantive nature and distribution of the overlap, rather than the numerical similarity score alone.

4. Preliminary Classification

Following the initial assessment, the editor may classify the concern as:

A. No substantive concern
The detected similarity is legitimate, appropriately attributed, or insufficient to indicate plagiarism. The review or publication process may continue.

B. Minor attribution or paraphrasing concern
The overlap is limited and may be resolved through appropriate citation, quotation, paraphrasing, or editorial correction. The authors may be asked to revise the manuscript.

C. Substantial suspected plagiarism
The manuscript contains significant unattributed material, inappropriate reproduction of another person's intellectual work, or substantial textual or conceptual appropriation. A formal investigation may be initiated.

D. Serious or systematic misconduct
The evidence indicates extensive plagiarism, repeated appropriation, plagiarism involving data or major findings, duplicate publication, fabricated attribution, or other serious research-integrity concerns. The manuscript may be suspended from further processing pending investigation.

5. Author Notification and Right to Respond

Where the concern is substantive, the corresponding author will normally be informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to provide a written explanation.

The journal may request:

  • an explanation of the origin of the overlapping material;

  • copies of relevant previous publications;

  • documentation concerning authorship and contribution;

  • clarification regarding citations or permissions;

  • information about earlier versions of the manuscript; or

  • other documentation reasonably necessary to assess the allegation.

The authors' response should address the specific evidence identified by the editors.

Failure to respond within a reasonable period may result in the editorial process proceeding on the basis of the available evidence.

6. Confidentiality During Investigation

Plagiarism investigations are handled confidentially.

The journal will limit disclosure of allegations, evidence, correspondence, and investigative materials to individuals who have a legitimate role in resolving the matter.

Editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the investigation must not publicly disclose allegations before a determination has been reached, except where disclosure is necessary to protect research participants, the integrity of the scholarly record, or other legitimate interests.

7. Escalation to Institutional or External Authorities

Where the available evidence suggests serious research misconduct, or where the journal lacks the authority or information necessary to establish the facts, IEPJR may refer the matter to the appropriate:

  • author's institution;

  • research ethics committee;

  • research integrity office;

  • funding organization;

  • publisher or relevant scholarly body; or

  • other competent authority.

Institutional involvement may be particularly appropriate where determining intent, authorship, data ownership, employment status, or research conduct requires access to information unavailable to the journal.

The journal may request that the relevant institution conduct an investigation and communicate the outcome to the editorial team.

8. Editorial Decision Following Investigation

After considering the available evidence and, where applicable, the author's response or institutional findings, the editor may determine that:

  • no further action is required;

  • the manuscript may proceed to peer review;

  • the authors must revise and properly attribute the material;

  • the manuscript should be rejected;

  • the manuscript should be rejected and the matter referred to the relevant institution;

  • a published article requires correction or clarification;

  • an Expression of Concern should be issued; or

  • the published article should be retracted.

The action taken will be proportionate to the seriousness and reliability of the evidence.

9. Plagiarism in a Manuscript Under Review

If substantial plagiarism is identified before publication, the journal may suspend the peer review process while the matter is investigated.

Where serious plagiarism is established, the manuscript will normally be rejected. The journal may also restrict immediate resubmission where the circumstances indicate systematic or deliberate misconduct.

Where the issue is minor and appears to result from inadequate attribution rather than substantial appropriation, the editor may request correction or revision before the manuscript proceeds.

10. Plagiarism in a Published Article

If plagiarism is identified after publication, the journal will assess the reliability and significance of the evidence and determine whether a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction is appropriate.

Where retraction is warranted, the journal will maintain the original article as part of the scholarly record while clearly identifying its retracted status and providing an explanation for the retraction, consistent with recognized publication-ethics practice.

The journal will not remove a published article from the scholarly record merely because a plagiarism allegation has been made. Removal or retraction will follow an appropriate editorial assessment and, where necessary, institutional investigation.

11. Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial finding when they can provide substantial new evidence, identify a material factual error, or demonstrate a significant procedural irregularity.

An appeal must clearly identify:

  • the decision being challenged;

  • the specific evidence supporting the appeal;

  • any factual or procedural error alleged; and

  • relevant supporting documentation.

Disagreement with an editorial decision, without substantive evidence, is not sufficient grounds for overturning the decision.

12. Record Keeping

IEPJR maintains appropriate confidential records of plagiarism investigations, including:

  • the original allegation or detection;

  • similarity reports and source materials;

  • editorial assessments;

  • correspondence with authors;

  • reviewer or editorial consultations where applicable;

  • institutional communications where applicable; and

  • the final editorial decision and corrective action.

Records are retained in accordance with the journal's applicable data-protection, confidentiality, and record-retention practices.

13. Post-Investigation Corrective Action

Where an investigation establishes that the scholarly record has been affected, IEPJR will take appropriate corrective action.

Corrective measures may include:

  • correction of attribution;

  • correction of bibliographic information;

  • publication of an editorial notice;

  • Expression of Concern;

  • retraction;

  • notification of relevant institutions or indexing services where appropriate; and

  • other measures necessary to preserve the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record.

14. Guiding Principles

All plagiarism investigations conducted by IEPJR are guided by the following principles:

Evidence-based assessment — decisions are based on verifiable evidence rather than similarity scores or allegations alone.

Proportionality — editorial action reflects the seriousness, extent, and nature of the misconduct.

Due process — authors are given an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.

Confidentiality — allegations and investigative materials are handled confidentially.

Editorial independence — decisions are made independently of commercial, institutional, political, or personal interests.

Protection of the scholarly record — the primary objective of corrective action is to preserve the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of the academic record.

Through this procedure, IEPJR seeks to ensure that suspected plagiarism is handled systematically, fairly, transparently, and consistently with internationally recognized publication-ethics standards, while protecting both the integrity of published scholarship and the legitimate rights of authors.