Plagiarism & Similarity Policy

PLAGIARISM & SIMILARITY POLICY

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)

ISSN: 2822-4841 | DOI Prefix: 10.29329

Quick Summary

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) requires all authors to comply with the journal’s publication ethics and originality standards. Plagiarism in any form — including unattributed use of others’ work, unacceptable text recycling (self-plagiarism), and duplicate/redundant submission — is not tolerated. All submissions are screened using iThenticate prior to peer review, and all cases are handled in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

1) Types of Plagiarism

PedPer defines plagiarism broadly to include any use of another person’s work, ideas, or data without proper acknowledgment. The following types of plagiarism are considered unacceptable:

Direct (verbatim) plagiarism — Copying text word-for-word from another source without quotation marks and proper citation.
Mosaic (patchwork) plagiarism — Mixing phrases or sentences from one or more sources with the author’s own words without adequate citation, creating a misleading impression of originality.
Paraphrase plagiarism — Restating another author’s ideas in different words without appropriate citation, thereby presenting them as original.
Idea plagiarism — Presenting another researcher’s original concept, theory, hypothesis, or research design as one’s own, without acknowledgment.
Self-plagiarism (text recycling) — Reusing substantial portions of one’s own previously published work without proper citation and transparent disclosure. This includes redundant publication and duplicate submission.
Data and image plagiarism — Using another researcher’s data, figures, tables, or images without permission and/or without proper attribution.
Undisclosed AI-generated text — Presenting text substantially generated by generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) as the author’s own original writing without disclosure. For full details, see the Generative AI Policy.

2) Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting manuscripts to PedPer are responsible for:

Ensuring that their work is original and does not contain plagiarised material in any form;
Properly citing and referencing all sources, including their own prior publications;
Using quotation marks and block quotation formatting when reproducing text verbatim;
Paraphrasing appropriately and providing citations when restating others’ ideas;
Disclosing any use of generative AI tools in manuscript preparation, in accordance with the Generative AI Policy;
Disclosing any overlap with their own prior work (e.g., thesis/dissertation, conference paper, preprint) at the time of submission and citing the source;
Confirming in the submission checklist that the manuscript is original and not under consideration elsewhere.

3) Similarity Screening (iThenticate)

All submissions are screened using iThenticate before peer review. Similarity scores are used as a diagnostic tool and are not the sole determinant of plagiarism. The editorial team evaluates similarity reports in context, considering disciplinary norms and the nature of the overlap.

Similarity thresholds

As a general guideline, PedPer expects:

Criterion	Guideline
Overall similarity index (excl. references & direct quotations)	≤ 20%
Single source similarity	≤ 3%

Note: These thresholds are guidelines, not rigid cut-offs. A manuscript with 18% similarity may be problematic if the overlap is concentrated in the introduction or results, while a manuscript with 22% may be acceptable if the overlap consists of standard methodological descriptions and properly quoted material.

What is excluded from the similarity calculation

The reference list;
Properly quoted and attributed material (with quotation marks and citation);
Standard bibliographic information (article titles in the reference list, author names, institutional affiliations);
Common phrases and discipline-specific terminology that cannot reasonably be paraphrased.

Contextual evaluation

The editorial team assesses:

Where the overlap occurs (e.g., introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion);
Whether the overlapping text is properly cited;
Whether the overlap comes from the authors’ own prior work (self-plagiarism assessment);
Whether the overlap represents standard methodological descriptions common in the discipline.

4) Editorial Actions Based on the Similarity Report

Finding	Action
Minor overlap, properly cited	No action required; manuscript proceeds to peer review.
Moderate overlap or improper citation	Authors requested to revise, paraphrase, and/or add proper citations. Manuscript returned for revision before review.
Significant overlap or suspected plagiarism	Authors contacted for explanation (15 days to respond). If plagiarism confirmed: desk rejection.
Confirmed plagiarism or manipulated report	Immediate rejection. Investigation in accordance with COPE flowcharts and Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

Authors are given 15 days to respond to similarity-related queries. If no response is received within this period (or any agreed extension), the editorial office may proceed with a decision based on available evidence.

5) Thesis- and Dissertation-Derived Manuscripts

Manuscripts derived from the author’s own thesis or dissertation are not automatically considered self-plagiarism, provided that:

The thesis/dissertation source is explicitly disclosed at the time of submission (in the cover letter and/or title page);
The submitted manuscript represents a substantially revised, expanded, or reframed contribution compared to the original thesis chapter;
The thesis/dissertation is properly cited in the manuscript;
The author holds or shares copyright of the thesis content (or has obtained permission from the degree-granting institution, where required).

Similarly, manuscripts based on conference papers or preprints should be disclosed and cited. See also the Late / Multiple Submission Policy.

6) Post-Publication Detection

If plagiarism or unacceptable text overlap is identified after publication, PedPer will investigate the matter in accordance with COPE flowcharts and the journal’s Handling Allegations of Misconduct Policy. Depending on the severity and nature of the overlap, the journal may:

Publish a Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum) if the overlap is minor and attributable to honest error;
Publish an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing;
Issue a Retraction if the overlap is substantial and constitutes confirmed plagiarism or redundant publication.

For full details on the retraction process, see the Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy.

7) Honest Error vs. Misconduct

PedPer distinguishes between honest error (e.g., an inadvertent failure to cite a source, minor text overlap due to common disciplinary phrasing) and deliberate misconduct (e.g., systematic copying, fabrication of originality, manipulation of similarity reports).

In cases of honest error, the editorial response focuses on correction and improvement. In cases of confirmed misconduct, the response may include rejection, retraction, institutional notification, and/or temporary submission restrictions.

8) Sanctions

If serious misconduct is confirmed, PedPer may take the following actions:

Before publication: Immediate rejection of the manuscript.
After publication: Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction, as appropriate.
Institutional notification: The authors’ affiliated institution(s) may be notified.
Submission restrictions: A temporary restriction on future submissions to PedPer may be imposed (typically 12–24 months) in cases of confirmed deliberate plagiarism.
External referral: The matter may be referred to COPE for guidance, or to relevant national/international ethics bodies.

9) Handling and Policy Alignment

All similarity and plagiarism concerns are handled in accordance with: