Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism, Text Recycling, and Overlapping Publication Policy

The Andalasian International Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences (AIJANS) is committed to originality, proper attribution, transparent reporting, and the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to AIJANS and to articles already published by the journal. It covers plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, and related practices involving text, ideas, data, figures, images, tables, code, or other research material.

AIJANS evaluates suspected problems on the basis of documentary evidence and editorial judgment, taking account of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, Version 5 (2026) and applicable COPE guidance. A text-similarity report is a screening aid, not a finding of plagiarism.

1. Scope and Definitions

Plagiarism: presenting another person's words, ideas, arguments, data, methods, images, figures, tables, code, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment. Plagiarism may occur with verbatim copying, close paraphrasing, translation without acknowledgment, or reuse of material in altered form.
Direct or verbatim plagiarism: copying another source's distinctive wording without suitable quotation, citation, or other clear attribution.
Mosaic plagiarism and inappropriate paraphrasing: closely reproducing the structure, reasoning, or expression of a source through minor changes without acknowledging that source.
Text recycling: reusing substantial wording from one's own previously disseminated work without sufficient disclosure or attribution. Its acceptability depends on the amount, location, context, transparency, and relevant rights.
Redundant or duplicate publication: publishing substantially overlapping findings, datasets, analyses, or conclusions as separate original publications without adequate disclosure, justification, or cross-reference. This concern is distinct from text recycling alone.
Inappropriate reuse of non-text material: reproducing or adapting figures, images, tables, datasets, maps, or code without required attribution, permissions, licensing compliance, or disclosure.
Citation manipulation: adding references or pressuring authors to cite sources for purposes unrelated to scholarly relevance, including artificially inflating citation counts.

Authors must also disclose substantial overlap with related manuscripts, conference papers, working papers, theses, reports, preprints, or articles, including their own. Previous public availability is not necessarily plagiarism or duplicate publication: editors evaluate the nature and extent of overlap, source attribution, the journal's applicable prior-publication rules, and whether genuinely new findings are presented.

2. Originality and Author Responsibilities

By submitting to AIJANS, authors affirm that the submission is an original scholarly contribution, properly credits all relevant sources, and is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Any exception or previous dissemination must be disclosed to the editor at submission. Authors must:

Use quotation marks or equivalent identification for verbatim quotations, cite sources for paraphrased ideas and borrowed material, and disclose reuse of their own earlier publications;
Identify related publications and manuscripts, explain material overlap, and provide copies or links when requested;
Obtain necessary permissions for third-party material that is not otherwise covered by a compatible licence or legal exception;
Describe the origin and processing of reused or shared data, figures, and analytical outputs clearly enough for readers to assess the work;
Verify all references and source claims, including those suggested or generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools; and
Respond accurately and promptly to editorial questions about originality or overlap.

Using generative AI to paraphrase copied material does not remove the obligation to attribute the original source. AI-generated fictitious references, fabricated quotations, or misrepresented source content are unacceptable. The separate AIJANS authorship and AI-use requirements also apply.

3. Similarity Screening and Interpretation

AIJANS may screen manuscripts using Turnitin or other appropriate text-similarity services at submission, during editorial assessment, after revision, or when a concern arises. Similarity screening identifies matching or closely similar text; it cannot independently establish plagiarism, originality, the legitimacy of reuse, or an author's intent.

AIJANS does not treat any single overall similarity percentage, including 25%, as conclusive evidence of plagiarism or as a stand-alone ground for automatic rejection. Editors assess the nature of each match, the source, whether material is properly cited or quoted, the portion and location of overlap, the type of article, and whether the match concerns original findings, data, or conclusions.

Bibliographies, standard technical expressions, commonly used methodological descriptions, properly identified quotations, public-domain material, and a manuscript's own preprint or thesis may contribute to a similarity score. Such matches are assessed in context; they are not automatically exempt from scrutiny. A low similarity score does not rule out idea, data, image, or translated-text plagiarism. Editors may adjust software exclusions for screening consistency, but the underlying evidence takes precedence over the displayed percentage.

4. Editorial Assessment Before Publication

Initial assessment: an editor examines similarity findings or credible allegations and identifies the relevant source material and the precise nature of the suspected overlap.
Evidence preservation: the editorial office retains relevant reports, source comparisons, submission history, and correspondence in accordance with confidentiality and record-retention requirements.
Proportionate inquiry: where the concern is credible, the editor normally contacts the corresponding author with a specific description of the concern and a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation and evidence. Other authors may also be contacted as necessary.
Independent review: editors with a material conflict of interest must not decide the case. The Editor-in-Chief may request a second editorial assessment or advice from subject experts, the publisher, or appropriate research-integrity personnel.
Decision: depending on the evidence, the journal may proceed without action; request corrections, quotation, citation, or transparent disclosure; require substantial revision; suspend consideration pending clarification; reject the manuscript; or refer a serious or unresolved matter to the relevant institution.

Minor, inadvertent attribution errors may be correctable. Substantial unattributed borrowing, misrepresented datasets or figures, deceptive duplicate publication, or deliberate concealment may justify rejection or referral even if the overall similarity score is low. Requests merely to reduce the similarity score without addressing the underlying attribution or originality concern are insufficient.

5. Text Recycling and Related Publications

AIJANS assesses text recycling case by case, considering the amount of reused material, the manuscript section involved, whether the earlier source is cited, whether reuse obscures novelty, the article type, and applicable copyright or licence conditions. Limited repetition of standard descriptions of methods may be acceptable if it does not mislead readers and sources are properly acknowledged where necessary. Reuse of results, discussion, conclusions, or illustrations requires especially careful scrutiny.

Authors must disclose overlapping conference proceedings, preprints, theses, translations, related manuscripts, and previously reported data at submission. Whether a preprint or an expanded conference contribution can be considered depends on the journal's submission and prior-publication requirements, the extent of new contribution, and appropriate disclosure. Authors must not divide one study into multiple minimally distinct papers in a misleading manner (salami publication).

6. Concerns Raised After Publication

Readers, reviewers, authors, and other parties may report suspected plagiarism or overlapping publication through the AIJANS editorial contact page. Reports should identify the article, the potentially overlapping source(s), and the relevant passages or material where possible. Well-supported concerns are assessed regardless of the identity or affiliation of the person reporting them.

The editor will document and evaluate the evidence, seek an appropriate explanation from the author(s), and, where necessary, coordinate with the research institution or other journal while respecting confidentiality and procedural fairness. A published article is not automatically retracted merely because a similarity report is high. Based on the established findings and reliability of the scholarly record, outcomes may include:

No action: the allegation is unsupported or the reuse is appropriate and adequately disclosed;
Correction: a limited attribution or disclosure problem can be reliably remedied without undermining the article's findings;
Expression of concern: significant unresolved questions warrant informing readers while the inquiry or institutional investigation remains incomplete; or
Retraction: substantial plagiarism, deceptive redundant publication, or other serious violations make the record materially unreliable or inappropriate to retain without a retraction notice.

Notices will explain the reason and be linked to the original article. Retracted articles should remain accessible and clearly marked as retracted unless exceptional legal or safety reasons require removal of content. Article metadata will be updated where feasible. Decisions follow AIJANS's Corrections and Retractions Policy and applicable COPE guidance.

7. Fair Process, Confidentiality, and Conflicts of Interest

AIJANS will assess concerns impartially and proportionately, avoid premature allegations of intentional misconduct, provide authors a reasonable opportunity to respond, and document the basis for its editorial decisions. The journal may seek research-institution findings where specialist investigation is needed. Editors and reviewers involved in a case must disclose relevant competing interests and recuse themselves when necessary. Confidential correspondence and identifiable information will be handled responsibly, although limited sharing with institutions, publishers, or other journals may be necessary to resolve a concern.

8. Appeals and Policy Enforcement

Authors may request reconsideration of a plagiarism-related editorial decision by providing a reasoned written explanation and relevant supporting evidence to the editorial office. The appeal should identify material factual errors or procedural concerns; disagreement alone does not establish grounds for reversal. Whenever practicable, an editor who did not make the contested decision should assess the appeal. Decisions on integrity concerns remain subject to any applicable journal-wide complaints and appeals policy.

AIJANS may refine its screening procedures as tools and scholarly standards evolve. Any procedural thresholds used internally to triage similarity reports are screening indicators, not automatic determinations of plagiarism. The journal does not guarantee that automated detection will identify every instance of misconduct.