Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism and Similarity Policy

Thoughts Review (TR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of originality, academic integrity, and research ethics. This policy outlines the journal's definition of plagiarism, the procedures used to detect and address it, and the responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process.

This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations.

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to Thoughts Review, including research articles, review articles, case studies, editorials, and any other scholarly content considered for publication.

The journal recognizes that plagiarism, in all its forms, is a serious breach of publication ethics. The purpose of this policy is to:

               i.      Define what constitutes plagiarism and related forms of misconduct.

             ii.      Establish clear procedures for screening and detecting potential plagiarism.

           iii.      Outline the consequences of plagiarism for authors.

           iv.      Ensure transparency and fairness in the handling of allegations.

2. Definition of Plagiarism

Consistent with the COPE definition, plagiarism occurs when somebody presents the work of others (data, words, or theories) as if they were their own and without proper acknowledgment.

Plagiarism can take many forms, including but not limited to:

1.      Verbatim copying: Reproducing text, data, or ideas from another source without quotation marks and proper citation.

2.      Paraphrasing without attribution: Rewording another's work without acknowledging the original source.

3.      Self-plagiarism (text recycling): Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without adequate citation and transparency.

4.      Duplicate or redundant publication: Publishing the same work, or substantially overlapping work, in more than one journal without proper cross-referencing or justification.

5.      Citation manipulation: Behaviors intended to inflate citation counts for personal gain, such as excessive self-citation or coordinated citation between journals .

6.      Misappropriation of ideas: Presenting another's intellectual contribution, such as a research design or theoretical framework, as one's own.

7.      Image or data manipulation: Improperly altering, duplicating, or fabricating images or data to misrepresent findings .

A similarity score alone does not automatically establish plagiarism. The editorial team will assess the nature, context, extent, and attribution of any overlap before reaching a decision.

3. Plagiarism Screening and Detection

Thoughts Review is committed to screening manuscripts for originality before and during the peer review process.

Screening Procedures:

1.All submitted manuscripts may be screened using recognized plagiarism-detection software (such as iThenticate or Turnitin).

2.Screening may be conducted at the initial editorial stage and, where necessary, again before final acceptance.

3.Manuscripts may also be screened if there is reason to suspect that part or all of the work has been previously published.

Similarity Thresholds:

While similarity scores are advisory and not definitive, the journal uses the following indicative thresholds to guide editorial assessment:

A.    Overall similarity index: Manuscripts with an overall similarity score above 20–25% will receive closer scrutiny. Some indexed journals set stricter thresholds (e.g., below 12–15%) .

B.     Single-source similarity: Any single source contributing more than 5–10% similarity will be carefully examined.

C.     Scores in the reference list, quotations, and methods sections may be excluded from the overall assessment where appropriately cited.

These thresholds are indicative and do not automatically determine the editorial outcome. The journal will prioritize the nature and context of the overlap over the numerical score alone.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to Thoughts Review are required to:

1.      Ensure that their manuscript is original and has not been published previously, in whole or in part, except as a preprint or abstract with proper disclosure.

2.      Appropriately cite and acknowledge all sources of data, text, ideas, and materials used.

3.      Disclose any prior publication, preprint, or substantial overlap with their own previously published work at the time of submission.

4.      Avoid duplicate submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.

5.      Ensure that all figures, tables, and images are original or properly licensed and attributed.

6.      Cooperate fully with any editorial inquiry regarding the originality of their work.

7.      Provide a similarity report if requested by the editorial office.

8.      Disclose any use of generative AI tools in accordance with the journal's AI policy; AI tools must not be used to conceal plagiarism or fabricate content.

5. Handling of Suspected Plagiarism

When potential plagiarism or related misconduct is identified, Thoughts Review will follow a fair and transparent process informed by COPE guidance.

Investigation Process:

1)      Initial Assessment: The editorial team will review the similarity report and the manuscript to determine whether a credible concern exists.

2)      Notification: The corresponding author will be notified of the concern and given an opportunity to respond with an explanation or clarification.

3)      Evidence Review: The editorial team will examine the nature, extent, and context of the overlap, including whether proper attribution was provided.

4)      Expert Consultation: Where necessary, the journal may seek advice from independent experts or consult the authors' institutions.

5)      Decision: A reasoned editorial decision will be made based on the evidence gathered.

Possible Outcomes:

Depending on the severity and nature of the finding, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

               i.      No action, if the overlap is properly attributed or falls within acceptable norms.

             ii.      Request for revision, requiring the author to improve citation, paraphrase, or remove problematic content.

           iii.      Rejection of the manuscript at any stage of the editorial process .

           iv.      Correction notice for published articles where a minor attribution error is identified .

             v.      Retraction of a published article in cases of serious or extensive plagiarism, following the journal's Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy .

           vi.      Notification of the authors' institutions or relevant authorities in cases of confirmed serious misconduct .

         vii.      Publication of an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing .

All investigations will be conducted confidentially, fairly, and without bias, with respect for the rights of all parties involved.

6. Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

Thoughts Review recognizes that authors may legitimately build upon their own prior work. However, self-plagiarism (the reuse of substantial portions of one's own previously published work without proper citation and transparency) and redundant publication are considered unethical.

Authors must:

1.      Clearly cite their own prior publications where relevant.

2.      Disclose any overlap with previously published work at the time of submission.

3.      Avoid submitting work that substantially duplicates a previously published article.

COPE defines redundant/overlapping publication as publishing a work (or substantial sections) more than once without adequate acknowledgment, cross-referencing, or justification. Such cases will be assessed under this policy and may result in rejection or retraction.

7. Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation is prohibited. This includes behaviors intended to inflate citation counts for personal or collective gain, such as:

               i.      Excessive self-citation of an author's own work.

             ii.      Excessive citation to the journal publishing the citing article.

           iii.      Coordinated citation exchanges between journals.

Manuscripts exhibiting patterns of citation manipulation may be rejected or subject to further investigation.

8. Plagiarism in Published Articles (Post-Publication)

If credible concerns about plagiarism arise after publication, the journal will investigate the matter in accordance with its Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Depending on the severity of the finding, the journal may:

               i.      Publish a correction if the issue is limited to attribution or citation errors.

             ii.      Publish an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing.

           iii.      Retract the article if serious plagiarism is confirmed.

           iv.      Notify relevant indexing databases and repositories of the retraction.

The original article will not be removed from the public record; it will remain available but clearly marked as retracted or corrected.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Plagiarism

The use of generative AI tools does not exempt authors from the requirements of this policy. Authors remain fully responsible for the originality and integrity of their work.

AI tools must not be used to:

a. Generate or paraphrase content from other sources without proper attribution.

b.Fabricate data, references, or findings.

c. Conceal plagiarism or manipulate similarity scores.

Any use of AI must be transparently disclosed in accordance with the journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy.

10. International Standards and Best Practices

This policy is developed in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics principles and informed by the recommendations of:

               i.      Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

             ii.      Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

           iii.      International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

           iv.      Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME)

Thoughts Review follows the ethical principles and best practices recommended by these organizations to ensure responsible publishing and the protection of the scholarly record.

11. Policy Review

Thoughts Review periodically reviews and updates this policy to ensure continued alignment with evolving standards of research integrity and ethical publishing. The editorial team is responsible for implementing this policy consistently and for reviewing it when significant ethical concerns arise.

Contact

Questions or concerns regarding this Plagiarism and Similarity Policy should be directed to the Thoughts Review editorial office using the official contact details published on the journal website.