Plagiarism & Similarity Policy

The Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ) is committed to protecting the originality, integrity, and reliability of the scholarly record. Authors are expected to submit work that is original, appropriately attributed, transparently reported, and consistent with responsible scholarly practice.
CNJ uses similarity screening as part of its editorial assessment to identify textual overlap with previously available material. Similarity reports are used as screening and decision-support tools and are interpreted by editors in context. A similarity score alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred and is not used as an automatic criterion for acceptance or rejection.
This policy addresses similarity screening, plagiarism, inappropriate text or content reuse, duplicate publication, and the editorial procedures applied when potential concerns are identified. It should be read together with CNJ's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS) and Retraction & Correction Policy.

1. Principles and Scope
Plagiarism occurs when words, ideas, data, images, figures, or other intellectual material originating from another source are presented without appropriate acknowledgment, attribution, permission where required, or other necessary transparency.
CNJ evaluates plagiarism and inappropriate reuse according to the nature, extent, location, context, attribution, and scholarly significance of the material concerned rather than according to a predetermined numerical similarity threshold.
The journal distinguishes between:

• Legitimate and appropriately attributed textual overlap;
• Limited or inadvertent attribution problems that may be correctable;
• Inappropriate text recycling or redundant reuse of previously published material;
• Substantial unattributed copying or paraphrasing;
• Duplicate or redundant publication; and
• Other forms of plagiarism or unethical reuse that may compromise the integrity of the scholarly record.

Concerns are evaluated fairly and proportionately. An identified textual match is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct.

2. Similarity Screening and Editorial Interpretation
All submitted manuscripts undergo similarity screening using recognized similarity-detection software, such as iThenticate, Turnitin, or equivalent tools, before external peer review or at another appropriate stage of editorial assessment.
Similarity-detection software identifies matching or overlapping text against content available within the databases searched by the system. The resulting Similarity Report assists editors in locating material that may require further examination.
Editors assess similarity reports by considering, where applicable:

• The source of matched material;
• The location and extent of the overlap;
• Whether appropriate citation or attribution has been provided;
• Whether quoted material has been properly identified;
• Whether the overlap involves standard methodological language or other conventional expressions;
• Whether text has been substantially reproduced or only incidentally matched;
• Whether ideas, findings, data, tables, figures, or other intellectual content have been inappropriately reused;
• Whether previously published work by the same author has been transparently acknowledged; and
• Whether the overlap affects the originality, interpretation, or integrity of the manuscript.

CNJ does not use a fixed overall similarity percentage or single-source percentage as an automatic threshold for manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection.
A manuscript with a relatively high similarity score may contain legitimate quotations, references, standard terminology, or appropriately attributed material, while a manuscript with a low overall score may still contain a serious instance of unattributed copying. Editorial judgment therefore focuses on the underlying matched content rather than the percentage alone.
Where appropriate, bibliographies, properly quoted material, cited text, or other expected matches may be excluded or filtered when reviewing a Similarity Report.

3. Forms of Plagiarism and Inappropriate Reuse
Direct or Literal Plagiarism
Direct plagiarism involves copying words, sentences, paragraphs, or other substantial textual material from another source without appropriate quotation, citation, or attribution.
Mosaic or Patchwork Plagiarism
Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism involves combining words, phrases, sentence structures, or ideas from one or more sources with only superficial modification while failing to provide appropriate attribution.
Inappropriate Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing does not remove the obligation to acknowledge the original source. Rewriting another author's ideas, arguments, interpretations, or findings without appropriate citation may constitute plagiarism even when the wording has been changed.
Idea Plagiarism
Presenting another person's original ideas, hypotheses, concepts, theoretical arguments, models, interpretations, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment may constitute plagiarism.
Data, Tables, Figures, Images, and Other Materials
Using data, tables, figures, photographs, illustrations, instruments, or other materials originating from another source without appropriate attribution or permission where required is not permitted.
Authors are responsible for identifying third-party materials and obtaining any permissions necessary for their lawful reuse.
Text Recycling and Reuse of Authors' Previous Work
Reuse of an author's own previously disseminated text is commonly referred to as text recycling or, in some contexts, self-plagiarism.
Not all textual reuse constitutes misconduct. Editors consider factors including:

• The amount and location of reused material;
• The nature of the article;
• Whether the original source has been cited or otherwise disclosed;
• Whether the reuse concerns standard methodological descriptions;
• Whether previously published data or findings are being represented as new; and
• Whether copyright or licensing requirements are affected.

Substantial reuse of previously published text, data, analyses, or findings without appropriate disclosure or justification may require revision, rejection, or post-publication action.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Authors must not submit or publish substantially the same manuscript, data, findings, or analyses in multiple journals without appropriate disclosure and legitimate scholarly justification.
Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is not permitted.
Related manuscripts, previous reports, conference publications, preprints, theses, datasets, or other potentially overlapping materials should be disclosed when relevant so that editors can assess the relationship transparently.

4. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality and appropriate attribution of submitted material.
Authors should:

• Cite and acknowledge relevant sources accurately;
• Use quotation and attribution appropriately when reproducing words from another source;
• Paraphrase responsibly without misrepresenting another person's ideas as their own;
• Transparently acknowledge relevant reuse of their own previously published material;
• Disclose manuscripts or publications that overlap substantially with the submitted work;
• Obtain permission for copyrighted third-party material when required;
• Provide related publications or supporting documentation when requested by editors;
• Respond fully and accurately to questions concerning potential overlap; and
• Cooperate with legitimate editorial or publication-ethics inquiries.

Authors may use similarity-checking tools before submission as a writing-integrity aid; however, obtaining a particular similarity percentage does not guarantee that a manuscript complies with this policy.

5. Editorial Response Before Publication
When potentially problematic overlap is identified before publication, the editorial response depends on the nature and significance of the concern.

Editorial action is based on the evidence and context of the case rather than solely on the amount of matching text.
Where concerns are complex, editors may seek additional independent advice or follow relevant publication-ethics procedures before reaching a decision.

6. Plagiarism or Overlap Identified After Publication
Concerns raised after publication are evaluated with the same principles of fairness, evidence, proportionality, and protection of the scholarly record.
Depending on the nature and significance of the concern, CNJ may consider:
Correction
A correction may be appropriate when a limited attribution or textual problem can be corrected without undermining the reliability or principal conclusions of the article.
Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be considered when substantial concerns exist but the evidence remains inconclusive, an appropriate investigation is ongoing, or a definitive editorial determination cannot yet be made.
Retraction
Retraction may be considered when plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse, or related misconduct is sufficiently serious to compromise the originality, reliability, or integrity of the publication.
Retraction is intended primarily to correct and protect the scholarly record, rather than to serve as punishment.
Retraction notices will be handled in accordance with CNJ's Retraction & Correction Policy and applicable publication-ethics guidance.
Where appropriate, CNJ may communicate with relevant institutions, ethics committees, funders, other journals, or other responsible bodies when their involvement is reasonably necessary to clarify or investigate a significant concern.

7. Fair Process and Author Response
A similarity report, allegation, or complaint does not by itself establish plagiarism or misconduct.
Before reaching a substantive adverse conclusion, CNJ will normally:

• Conduct an initial assessment of the available evidence;
• Identify the material or issue giving rise to concern;
• Seek clarification or an explanation from the author(s) where appropriate;
• Review relevant source material and supporting documentation;
• Obtain additional editorial or expert advice when necessary; and
• Consider the author's response together with the available evidence.

Authors are expected to cooperate with legitimate inquiries and may provide explanations, documentation, source materials, or other evidence relevant to the assessment.
Cases are handled with appropriate confidentiality. Decisions are based on the available evidence and the need to protect the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

8. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors are responsible for:

• Reviewing similarity reports contextually rather than relying on numerical scores alone;
• Distinguishing legitimate overlap from potentially inappropriate reuse;
• Applying this policy fairly and consistently;
• Seeking clarification or additional assessment when necessary;
• Protecting confidentiality during investigations;
• Avoiding premature conclusions regarding misconduct; and
• Taking proportionate editorial action when concerns are substantiated.

Reviewers should:

• Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse, or missing attribution confidentially to the editor;
• Identify relevant sources when reasonably possible;
• Avoid directly contacting or accusing authors;
• Maintain manuscript confidentiality; and
• Never use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct formal misconduct investigations. Responsibility for evaluating and managing allegations rests with the editorial process.

9. Relationship With Publication Ethics and Post-Publication Policies
Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or other broader integrity concerns may also be handled under CNJ's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS).
Post-publication corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions are governed by the Retraction & Correction Policy.

Authors who wish to challenge an editorial decision or raise a procedural concern may use the procedures established in the Complaints & Appeals Policy.

10. Policy Review
This Plagiarism & Similarity Policy is reviewed periodically to maintain consistency with CNJ's editorial practices, publication-ethics framework, similarity-screening procedures, and relevant developments in scholarly publishing.
Material changes to similarity-screening practices or procedures for handling plagiarism and inappropriate reuse will be reflected in the journal's applicable policies and public information.