1. Policy Statement

The Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd) is committed to maintaining academic integrity, originality, transparency, and ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

All manuscripts submitted to JIEEd must represent original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledge the intellectual contributions of other researchers.

The journal uses Turnitin to identify textual similarities between submitted manuscripts and existing scholarly or publicly accessible materials.

Similarity screening is an integral part of the journal's editorial quality assurance procedures. However, similarity detection does not independently establish plagiarism. All significant findings require appropriate editorial interpretation.

This policy applies to both Original Research Articles and Review Articles, including revised manuscripts and accepted articles undergoing final publication preparation.

2. Definition and Forms of Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's intellectual work, words, ideas, data, or other scholarly contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

JIEEd recognizes several forms of plagiarism and related publication-integrity violations.

Type	Description
Direct Plagiarism	Reproducing another source's wording without appropriate quotation and attribution
Paraphrasing Plagiarism	Rewriting another author's ideas or arguments without acknowledging the original source
Mosaic Plagiarism	Combining copied or closely paraphrased material from multiple sources without proper attribution
Self-Plagiarism or Inappropriate Text Recycling	Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously disseminated work without adequate disclosure or justification
Data or Idea Plagiarism	Presenting another researcher's data, findings, analytical framework, or original ideas without acknowledgment
Translation Plagiarism	Translating previously published material from another language and presenting it as original work without appropriate attribution
Duplicate or Redundant Publication	Publishing substantially overlapping scholarly work without adequate disclosure, justification, or authorization

Plagiarism is determined by the nature and context of the unattributed use, not solely by the quantity of matching text.

3. Similarity Screening Tool and Threshold

3.1 Screening Software

JIEEd uses Turnitin as its primary text-similarity screening tool.

Turnitin reports indicate textual overlap with material available in its comparison databases. Such reports do not establish whether the overlap constitutes plagiarism, copyright infringement, or another publication-integrity violation.

3.2 Maximum Similarity Threshold

The journal applies a technical similarity requirement of no more than 20% overall similarity.

Screening Component	JIEEd Policy
Primary Screening Tool	: Turnitin
Maximum Similarity Index	: 20%
Initial Screening	: Before external peer review
Additional Screening	: After substantial revisions or when necessary
Final Screening	: Before publication, as part of editorial quality assurance
Interpretation	: Human editorial assessment
Plagiarism Determination	: Based on evidence and contextual evaluation, not similarity percentage alone

Manuscripts exceeding the 20% threshold may be returned to authors for correction and resubmission when the identified overlap is remediable.

A similarity index of 20% or lower does not automatically establish originality or guarantee acceptance.

Similarly, a score above 20% does not, by itself, establish research misconduct.

3.3 Interpretation of Similarity Reports

Editors consider:

The nature and extent of textual overlap.
The sources from which the similarities originate.
Whether the material has been appropriately cited.
Whether the matching content consists of standard terminology or commonly used methodological descriptions.
Whether overlap occurs in the Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, or other parts of the manuscript.
Whether substantial intellectual contributions, interpretations, findings, or conclusions have been reproduced.
Whether the manuscript overlaps with the authors' previous publications.
Whether the overlap indicates possible duplicate publication or inappropriate text recycling.

A low overall similarity percentage may still conceal serious plagiarism when important ideas, findings, or passages have been appropriated.

Editors, therefore, evaluate similarity reports in their scholarly context.

4. Similarity Report Settings and Exclusions

JIEEd recognizes that similarity percentages may be affected by the settings used to generate reports.

The editorial office may apply appropriate exclusions, such as bibliographic references, correctly formatted quotations, or other standardized material, according to the journal's screening procedures.

Exclusions must be applied consistently and must not be used to conceal inappropriate copying.

Authors should not manipulate manuscript formatting, character spacing, punctuation, or document structure to evade similarity detection.

The journal reserves the right to conduct independent screening using its authorized settings, regardless of any similarity report submitted by an author.

5. Originality and Proper Source Attribution

Authors must acknowledge all relevant sources used in preparing their manuscripts.

5.1 Direct Quotations

Verbatim material must be appropriately identified and cited in accordance with APA 7th Edition.

Where direct quotation is necessary, authors must follow the applicable quotation and copyright requirements.

Citations do not automatically authorize the reproduction of copyrighted material beyond what is legally permitted.

5.2 Paraphrasing

Authors must express ideas accurately in their own scholarly language and provide citations to the original sources.

Replacing individual words with synonyms or making minor structural changes does not constitute adequate paraphrasing when the underlying wording or argument has been inappropriately reproduced.

5.3 Figures, Tables, and Research Instruments

Reproduced or adapted figures, tables, instruments, diagrams, and other scholarly materials must be appropriately attributed.

Permission must be obtained when required by copyright or licensing conditions.

5.4 Accurate Citation Practices

Every reference must correspond to an authentic and relevant source.

Authors must not fabricate references, misrepresent the content of cited publications, or cite materials that do not support the associated claims.

6. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

JIEEd recognizes that researchers may develop multiple publications from related projects or datasets.

However, manuscripts must demonstrate a distinct scholarly contribution and provide transparent acknowledgment of relevant previous work.

Authors must:

Disclose closely related publications or manuscripts.
Cite relevant earlier work, including their own.
Explain the distinct contribution of the submitted manuscript.
Avoid presenting previously published findings as entirely new.
Avoid substantial, unjustified reuse of previously published text.
Comply with applicable copyright and licensing requirements.

Limited reuse of standardized methodological descriptions may be considered in context, particularly where precise descriptions are necessary for methodological transparency.

Nevertheless, attribution, disclosure, and the scientific originality of the submission remain essential.

Previous dissemination as a preprint, conference presentation, or institutional document should be disclosed where relevant and assessed according to the journal's applicable publication policies.

7. Similarity Screening Procedure

JIEEd implements similarity screening as part of a structured editorial process.

Stage 1 — Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the official OJS platform and confirm compliance with the journal's originality and publication ethics requirements.

Stage 2 — Initial Similarity Screening

The editorial office conducts similarity screening using Turnitin before the manuscript proceeds to external peer review.

Stage 3 — Editorial Evaluation

An authorized editor reviews the similarity report and evaluates the nature, sources, and significance of matching material.

Stage 4 — Preliminary Editorial Action

Depending on the findings, the manuscript may:

Proceed to the next stage of editorial evaluation.
Be returned for correction of inappropriate overlap or attribution.
Be referred for further examination when serious concerns arise.
Be rejected when substantial plagiarism or another serious integrity violation is established.

Stage 5 — Author Clarification or Revision

When appropriate, authors are invited to provide explanations, correct citations, revise affected passages, or submit relevant supporting documentation.

Stage 6 — Reassessment

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional similarity screening to determine whether the identified concerns have been adequately addressed.

Stage 7 — Final Verification

The journal may perform a final similarity assessment before publication to ensure that substantive changes have not introduced new integrity concerns.

All significant decisions remain the responsibility of authorized human editors.

8. Editorial Responses to Identified Similarities

JIEEd applies proportionate editorial responses based on the seriousness and circumstances of the identified problem.

Finding	Possible Editorial Response
Legitimate Similarity	Proceed with editorial evaluation when attribution and originality requirements are satisfied.
Minor Attribution or Quotation Problems	Request correction, proper citation, or limited revision
Substantial Remediable Textual Overlap	Request significant revision and reassess the manuscript.
Serious or Substantiated Plagiarism	Reject the manuscript and take further appropriate action.
Suspected Duplicate Publication	Request disclosure, explanation, and supporting documentation; reject when warranted
Research-Integrity Concerns Identified After Publication	Evaluate whether a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is appropriate.

These responses are not automatic penalties based exclusively on similarity percentages.

The journal considers the evidence, severity, and intent, where relevant and reasonably ascertainable, and the potential consequences for the integrity of the scholarly record.

Serious or repeated violations may be referred to relevant institutions or research-integrity authorities where justified.

9. Handling Allegations of Plagiarism

Allegations of plagiarism must be assessed fairly, confidentially, and consistently with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct policies.

9.1 Initial Assessment

Editors evaluate the concern and examine available documentary evidence.

An allegation or similarity report alone is not proof of misconduct.

9.2 Author Clarification

Where appropriate, the corresponding author is contacted and given a reasonable opportunity to explain the identified concern.

Additional documentation may be requested when necessary.

9.3 Independent Evaluation

Complex or disputed cases may require consultation with qualified editors, relevant subject experts, or research-integrity authorities.

Individuals with significant competing interests must not determine the outcome.

9.4 Editorial Decision

Possible outcomes include:

No further action when the concern is not substantiated.
Request for clarification, attribution correction, or revision.
Rejection when serious plagiarism or publication misconduct is established.
Referral of significant concerns to relevant institutions.
Post-publication corrective action when necessary.

Editorial decisions must be supported by the available evidence and documented appropriately.

The journal follows relevant COPE guidance on suspected plagiarism when evaluating such cases.

10. Artificial Intelligence and Similarity Screening

The use of artificial intelligence does not remove an author's responsibility for originality and proper scholarly attribution.

AI-assisted writing, paraphrasing, translation, and content development must comply with the journal's AI Use Policy.

Authors must not use AI tools to:

Conceal plagiarism through automated paraphrasing.
Fabricate references or scholarly quotations.
Misrepresent source material.
Generate fictitious research findings.
Evade legitimate editorial screening.
Present another researcher's intellectual contributions as original work.

10.1 AI-Generated Writing Detection

JIEEd recognizes that AI-writing detection systems have technical limitations and may produce inaccurate results.

Accordingly:

An AI-writing detection score is not conclusive evidence of AI use.
Automated detection results must not independently determine manuscript rejection.
Relevant concerns must be evaluated by qualified human editors.
Authors may be asked to clarify substantive AI assistance or provide accurate disclosures.

Similarity detection and AI-generated writing detection are different processes. Neither substitutes for scholarly and ethical editorial evaluation.

10.2 Confidentiality and Reviewer Restrictions

All screening and editorial activities must comply with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

Peer reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or use AI tools to evaluate manuscript content, in accordance with JIEEd's AI Use Policy.

11. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts comply with the journal's originality and attribution requirements before submission.

Authors should:

Review their manuscripts for inappropriate textual overlap.
Cite original sources accurately.
Distinguish their own findings from those of previous researchers.
Disclose relevant publications.
Verify all references and DOI information.
Comply with copyright and licensing requirements.
Correct any identified attribution problems.
Cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries.
Disclose substantive AI assistance when required.

Authors are encouraged to use appropriate reference-management software and consult original scholarly sources rather than relying on secondary summaries or unverified AI-generated citations.

12. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

12.1 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

Ensuring that screening procedures are implemented consistently.
Interpreting similarity reports in their scholarly context.
Assessing credible concerns fairly and impartially.
Distinguishing remediable attribution problems from serious plagiarism.
Requesting clarification or revisions when appropriate.
Maintaining confidentiality.
Documenting significant editorial findings and decisions.
Taking appropriate action when misconduct is established.

12.2 Peer Reviewers

Reviewers who identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or improper attribution during their independent evaluation should report the concern confidentially to the handling editor.

Reviewers must not independently contact authors or undertake unauthorized investigations.

They must not disclose manuscript material or upload it to AI systems or unauthorized external services.

Editorial assessment and decisions concerning alleged plagiarism remain the responsibility of authorized editors.

13. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Concerns

Concerns about plagiarism may arise after an article has been published.

When credible post-publication concerns are identified, JIEEd examines the evidence and determines whether corrective action is required.

Possible actions include:

Correction: For errors that can be remedied without fundamentally undermining the reliability of the article.

Expression of Concern: When serious questions remain unresolved and further investigation is necessary.

Retraction: When substantial plagiarism, unreliable findings, or other serious publication-integrity problems justify correcting the scholarly record through retraction.

Retraction decisions are not based solely on a similarity percentage.

The journal follows applicable publication-ethics guidance and ensures that correction or retraction notices are transparent and appropriately linked to the original publication.

14. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration when they believe that a similarity assessment or plagiarism-related editorial decision involves a substantive factual error, misinterpretation of evidence, or procedural irregularity.

Appeals must provide clear reasons and relevant supporting documentation.

The journal evaluates appeals fairly and independently, with appropriate management of competing interests.

Complaints or appeals may be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact.

15. Policy Implementation and Review

JIEEd periodically reviews its plagiarism and similarity-screening procedures to maintain consistency with developments in scholarly publishing, research-integrity guidance, screening technologies, and applicable regulations.

Updates to this policy will be communicated through the journal's official website.

This policy must be read in conjunction with the journal's Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, AI Use Policy, Peer Review Policy, and Allegations of Research Misconduct.

Reference and Ethical Guidance

This policy is informed by the following guidance:

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening