Plagiarism Policy

Fundamental Scientific Reports in Multidisciplinary Areas (FSRMA) is committed to maintaining the integrity, originality, and reliability of the scholarly record. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, unattributed copying, or other forms of misrepresentation of intellectual work.

FSRMA evaluates suspected plagiarism and related publication-integrity concerns in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy and, where appropriate, relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when authors present another person's words, ideas, data, images, tables, figures, results, or other intellectual contributions as their own without appropriate acknowledgement.

Forms of plagiarism may include, but are not limited to:

• Direct copying of text without quotation, citation, or proper attribution.

• Substantial paraphrasing of another source without acknowledgement.

• Mosaic plagiarism or patchwriting in which words or sentence structures are altered while the original intellectual contribution remains inadequately attributed.

• Using another person's ideas, hypotheses, methods, data, figures, tables, or results without appropriate citation or permission where required.

• Inappropriate reuse of an author's own previously published material without transparent citation or disclosure.

• Translation of previously published material from another language without appropriate attribution.

• Reuse of copyrighted material without permission where permission is legally required.

Unintentional citation errors may also require correction; however, editorial action will depend on the nature, extent, and context of the problem.

Text Similarity Screening

Manuscripts submitted to FSRMA may be routinely screened for text similarity using appropriate plagiarism-detection or similarity-checking software.

[Insert the name of the software actually used by FSRMA, for example: iThenticate or Turnitin.]

Similarity-detection software is used as an editorial screening tool. A similarity percentage alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.

Similarity reports are reviewed by an editor or appropriately designated journal staff, who consider factors including:

• The source and location of matched text.

• Whether matching material has been properly quoted and cited.

• The amount and significance of unattributed material.

• Similarity in standard methodological or technical descriptions.

• Legitimate reuse of references, terminology, or commonly used expressions.

• Reuse of an author's previously published work.

• Whether the overlap affects the originality or integrity of the manuscript.

FSRMA therefore does not rely solely on a fixed numerical similarity threshold when determining plagiarism.

Screening During the Editorial Process

Text-similarity screening may be conducted:

• During initial editorial assessment.

• Before or during peer review where concerns arise.

• Before final acceptance or publication.

• After publication if a credible concern is raised.

Passing a similarity check does not guarantee acceptance, and a low similarity score does not exclude the possibility of plagiarism or other research-integrity concerns.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted work is original and appropriately acknowledges all sources.

Authors must:

• Cite all relevant sources accurately.

• Use quotation marks or another appropriate method when reproducing text verbatim.

• Clearly identify and cite previously published material, including their own work.

• Obtain permission for copyrighted material where required.

• Properly acknowledge reused figures, tables, images, datasets, and other materials.

• Disclose related publications or manuscripts where relevant.

• Avoid redundant or duplicate publication.

Authors should not attempt to manipulate similarity-detection systems by altering characters, inserting hidden text, replacing letters with symbols, or using other deceptive techniques.

Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Reuse of an author's own previously published material without appropriate citation or disclosure may constitute inappropriate text recycling or redundant publication.

However, limited textual overlap may sometimes be legitimate, particularly when describing standard methods, technical procedures, research instruments, or commonly accepted terminology.

Each case will be evaluated in context rather than solely by percentage of textual similarity.

Authors must transparently cite earlier publications when previously published material is reused and must comply with applicable copyright and licensing requirements.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not submit manuscripts that substantially duplicate previously published work without appropriate disclosure and justification.

A manuscript must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal.

If a submission is based on previously disseminated material, such as a preprint, conference abstract, thesis, dissertation, report, or other prior version, authors should disclose this information where required by the journal and cite the relevant source.

Handling Suspected Plagiarism Before Publication

If potential plagiarism or inappropriate overlap is identified before publication, the editorial team will assess the available evidence.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the journal may:

• Request an explanation from the author.

• Request proper citation or rewriting.

• Request supporting documentation.

• Return the manuscript for revision.

• Suspend editorial consideration while the issue is investigated.

• Reject the manuscript where significant plagiarism or deliberate misconduct is established.

Editorial decisions will be based on the substance and context of the overlap rather than a fixed similarity percentage.

Handling Plagiarism After Publication

If credible evidence of plagiarism is identified after publication, FSRMA will investigate the matter.

Depending on the findings and seriousness of the problem, appropriate action may include:

• Publishing a correction.

• Publishing an expression of concern.

• Retracting the article.

• Updating the article record and associated metadata where necessary.

Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction should be clearly linked to the original article and should explain the reason for the action where legally and ethically appropriate.

Serious or Repeated Misconduct

Where there is evidence of serious, deliberate, or repeated plagiarism, the journal may take additional appropriate action.

This may include contacting:

• The corresponding author.

• Co-authors.

• The author's institution.

• An institutional research-integrity office.

• A funding agency.

• Another journal or publisher involved in the matter.

Such communication will normally occur only when justified by the evidence and in accordance with appropriate publication-ethics procedures.

FSRMA does not impose automatic penalties solely on the basis of a numerical similarity score.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should notify the handling editor if they identify or reasonably suspect:

• Unattributed copying.

• Duplicate publication.

• Inappropriate text recycling.

• Uncredited use of data, figures, or ideas.

• Other potential research-integrity concerns.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact authors concerning suspected plagiarism. Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editorial office.

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for evaluating suspected plagiarism fairly, consistently, and confidentially.

Editors should:

• Review similarity reports using human judgment.

• Consider the context and scholarly significance of overlapping material.

• Give authors an opportunity to respond where appropriate.

• Avoid relying exclusively on automated detection tools.

• Take proportionate editorial action based on the available evidence.

• Consult relevant COPE guidance where appropriate.

Use of Automated Detection Tools

Automated similarity-detection tools support editorial assessment but do not replace human judgment.

Any automated indication of potential plagiarism, text similarity, duplicate material, figure manipulation, or other integrity concerns must be reviewed by an appropriate member of the editorial team before action is taken.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a plagiarism-related decision was based on a significant factual misunderstanding or procedural error may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

The appeal should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information.

Where appropriate, the appeal may be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.