Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy

The Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET) requires manuscripts to present original scholarly work and to acknowledge the intellectual contributions of other researchers. Authors must distinguish their own findings and interpretations from information obtained from previously published or otherwise accessible sources.

JIPVET uses similarity screening as part of its initial editorial assessment. The purpose is to identify textual overlap that may require closer examination, not to determine plagiarism solely through a software-generated percentage. The handling editor evaluates the identified matches alongside the manuscript, its references, and other relevant evidence.

This policy applies to original research articles, review articles, and other scholarly manuscripts submitted to JIPVET. It should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct Policy.

1. Originality and Proper Attribution

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the submitted manuscript accurately represents their scholarly contribution. Ideas, statements, data, figures, tables, and research findings obtained from other sources must be acknowledged through appropriate citation or attribution.

JIPVET considers the following practices relevant to plagiarism and originality:

• Direct plagiarism. Reproducing another person's text or intellectual contribution without appropriate acknowledgment.
• Unattributed paraphrasing. Presenting another author's ideas or arguments in different wording without citing the source.
• Inappropriate text recycling. Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without adequate citation, disclosure, or justification.
• Redundant or duplicate publication. Presenting substantially overlapping research findings as a separate original contribution without appropriate disclosure or sufficient scholarly distinction.
• Improper reuse of research material. Reproducing figures, tables, data, or other published material without the necessary attribution or permission.
• Misleading attribution. Concealing the origin of scholarly content or presenting previously reported findings as newly generated results.

Similar wording may occur legitimately in descriptions of established procedures, technical terminology, standard analytical methods, or properly attributed quotations. Such overlap is assessed according to its context, extent, and significance.

2. Similarity Screening Procedure

JIPVET uses Turnitin to identify textual similarities between submitted manuscripts and material available in the sources covered by the screening system.

Similarity screening is conducted during initial editorial assessment, before a manuscript proceeds to external peer review. Screening may be repeated following revision when substantial changes or unresolved originality concerns warrant further examination.

The editorial assessment considers:

• The overall similarity percentage and the distribution of matched text.
• The extent of overlap with individual source documents.
• Whether matching passages are properly attributed or quoted.
• The location of overlapping material, particularly in the introduction, methods, results, and discussion.
• Similarities involving the authors' previously published work.
• Possible duplication of findings, datasets, figures, or tables.
• The nature and scholarly significance of the overlapping material.

Editors may examine the original source publications or request additional documentation when necessary. Similarity screening does not replace scientific review or independent editorial judgment.

3. Similarity Index and Its Interpretation

A manuscript with a similarity index exceeding 20% may require further editorial examination, clarification, or revision. The editor considers whether the overlap is appropriately attributed, reflects standard scholarly language, or indicates a substantive originality concern.

A similarity index of 20% or below does not guarantee that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. Extensive unattributed copying from a single source or inappropriate reuse of research findings may warrant editorial action even when the overall percentage is relatively low.

Similarity results must be interpreted in relation to the sources, manuscript content, and nature of the reported research. The inclusion or exclusion of bibliographic references, quotations, or other text categories during screening must not be used to conceal inappropriate overlap.

Editorial decisions are based on the evidence of originality and proper attribution, not on the similarity percentage alone.

4. Editorial Assessment and Decisions

When similarity screening identifies potentially problematic overlap, the handling editor examines the relevant passages and source material. The response depends on the nature, extent, and seriousness of the concern.

Possible editorial actions include:

1. Proceeding with assessment. Where the overlap is appropriately attributed or otherwise acceptable, the manuscript may proceed through the editorial process.
2. Requesting corrections. Authors may be asked to improve references, correct inadequate paraphrasing, or acknowledge previously published material.
3. Requesting clarification. Authors may be asked to explain substantial overlap and provide related publications or supporting documentation.
4. Requiring further assessment. Manuscripts with unresolved concerns may undergo additional editorial examination before further processing.
5. Rejecting a manuscript. Serious plagiarism, misleading attribution, or unjustified duplicate publication may result in rejection when supported by the available evidence.

An elevated similarity score alone does not establish misconduct. Authors should be given an appropriate opportunity to clarify potentially problematic overlap before a misconduct-related conclusion is reached.

The final editorial decision rests with the editor authorized under JIPVET's editorial governance.

5. Previously Disseminated Research and Text Recycling

Authors must disclose relevant earlier dissemination of the research, including closely related journal articles, conference papers, preprints, theses, dissertations, or other accessible research outputs.

Prior dissemination does not necessarily constitute duplicate publication. The editorial assessment considers the nature of the earlier material, the extent of overlap, copyright or licensing conditions, and the distinct contribution of the submitted manuscript.

When a manuscript develops findings previously reported in a thesis, dissertation, conference contribution, or preprint, authors should identify the earlier work and explain the relationship between the publications.

Reuse of methodological descriptions may be acceptable when the methods are substantially the same and the original sources are appropriately acknowledged. Reuse of previously published results, figures, or conclusions requires closer examination and transparent reporting.

Translating previously published material into another language does not, by itself, make the work an original publication. Any proposed secondary publication must be disclosed and assessed under applicable editorial and copyright requirements.

6. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must take reasonable steps to ensure the originality and accuracy of their manuscripts before submission.

Authors are expected to:

• Cite sources accurately and acknowledge prior contributions.
• Distinguish original results from previously reported findings.
• Disclose related manuscripts and prior dissemination.
• Obtain permission for third-party material where required.
• Avoid simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals.
• Respond to editorial requests regarding similarity reports and originality concerns.
• Ensure that revisions do not conceal inappropriate copying or misrepresent source material.

Authors must not manipulate wording, references, hidden text, document formatting, or screening systems with the intention of concealing inappropriate overlap.

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating responses to originality concerns and ensuring that relevant co-authors are informed.

7. Allegations of Plagiarism and Post-Publication Concerns

Suspected plagiarism may be identified during editorial screening, peer review, or after publication. Concerns should be reported to the editorial office with sufficient information to identify the relevant manuscript, article, and source material.

The editor examines the available evidence, considers the context of the alleged overlap, and may request an explanation from the corresponding author.

Serious or unresolved cases may require additional independent assessment or communication with the relevant research institution. Research misconduct allegations are handled in accordance with JIPVET's Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct Policy.

If a substantial integrity concern is identified after publication, JIPVET may consider a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the available evidence and the implications for the reliability of the article.

Any formal post-publication action should be documented and linked to the affected article so that readers can identify the nature of the correction or concern.

8. Confidentiality, Clarification, and Editorial Appeals

Similarity reports, unpublished manuscripts, supporting materials, and communications concerning potential misconduct are treated as confidential editorial information.

Authors are entitled to provide explanations or supporting evidence in response to substantive concerns. Editors must distinguish suspected plagiarism from confirmed findings and avoid conclusions unsupported by the available evidence.

Authors who believe an editorial decision involved a material factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest may request reconsideration under JIPVET's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

A request for reconsideration does not guarantee a different editorial outcome.