Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Text Recycling

Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Text Recycling Policy

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining the originality, integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.

The journal considers plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, and other forms of substantial unattributed overlap to be serious publication-ethics concerns. Authors submitting manuscripts to MAJIS are expected to ensure that their submissions represent original scholarly work, that the contributions of other researchers are properly acknowledged, and that any substantial relationship with previously disseminated or published work is transparently disclosed.

MAJIS recognises that textual similarity may arise for legitimate reasons. For example, commonly used terminology, titles, references, methodological descriptions, quotations, established definitions, and other conventional scholarly expressions may produce similarity without constituting plagiarism.

Accordingly, MAJIS does not determine plagiarism or inappropriate text recycling solely on the basis of a similarity percentage. Similarity-detection reports are treated as screening and investigative tools, while the final assessment requires appropriate editorial judgment and, where necessary, communication with the authors.

This policy establishes MAJIS's standards and procedures concerning:

plagiarism;
self-plagiarism;
redundant publication;
duplicate publication;
overlapping publication;
text recycling;
substantial textual overlap;
duplication of data, tables, figures, or other research outputs;
disclosure of previous or related publications;
similarity screening;
investigation of suspected cases;
pre-publication action;
post-publication action;
correction and retraction;
author responsibilities; and
editorial responsibilities.

This policy has been developed with reference to relevant publication-ethics principles and COPE guidance concerning plagiarism, redundant publication, and text recycling. COPE distinguishes plagiarism from text recycling and recommends that editors assess text recycling on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature, extent, location, attribution, and significance of the overlap.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to all scholarly materials submitted to or published by MAJIS, including:

research articles;
review articles;
conceptual articles;
literary studies;
linguistic studies;
cultural studies;
interdisciplinary articles;
theoretical papers;
book or literature-related scholarly contributions;
commentaries, where applicable;
supplementary materials;
figures;
tables;
appendices; and
other scholarly content published by the journal.

The policy applies both:

before publication, during editorial assessment and peer review; and
after publication, when concerns are raised about an article already included in the scholarly record.

3. Definitions

3.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person's words, ideas, arguments, data, interpretations, structure, creative work, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate attribution.

Plagiarism may occur in:

textual passages;
ideas;
theoretical arguments;
translations;
literary interpretations;
research findings;
data;
tables;
figures;
images;
audio-visual materials;
computer code;
research instruments; or
other forms of intellectual or creative work.

Plagiarism may involve direct copying or sufficiently close paraphrasing that the source's intellectual contribution is presented without adequate acknowledgment.

3.2 Self-Plagiarism

The term self-plagiarism is sometimes used to describe substantial reuse of an author's previously published material without appropriate disclosure or attribution.

MAJIS recognises that the term may encompass several different publication-ethics situations.

For clarity, this policy distinguishes:

legitimate reuse of an author's own text;
inappropriate text recycling;
redundant publication; and
duplicate publication.

Authors must not assume that they may freely reproduce substantial portions of previously published work merely because they are among the original authors.

3.3 Text Recycling

Text recycling refers to the reuse of portions of an author's previously disseminated or published text in a new manuscript.

COPE distinguishes text recycling from plagiarism because the reused text generally originates from the same author or authors rather than from another author.

Text recycling may occur in:

introductions;
literature reviews;
methods;
theoretical frameworks;
discussions;
conclusions; or
other sections.

Not all text recycling is necessarily unethical to the same degree. The significance of the overlap must be assessed in context.

3.4 Redundant Publication

Redundant publication occurs when substantially similar research, data, findings, arguments, or scholarly content is published more than once without adequate justification, transparency, cross-reference, or disclosure.

Redundant publication may occur even where the wording of the publications is different.

The central issue is not merely textual similarity but whether the new publication represents a substantial repetition of previously published scholarly content without sufficient new contribution.

3.5 Duplicate Publication

Duplicate publication is a form of redundant publication in which substantially the same article, research, data, or findings are published more than once.

Examples may include:

submitting substantially the same manuscript to two journals;
publishing substantially identical research in multiple journals;
republishing the same data and conclusions under a different title;
reproducing the same article with only minor changes; or
translating a previously published article without transparent reference to the original publication and appropriate permissions where required.

3.6 Overlapping Publication

Overlapping publication refers to publications that share substantial content, data, arguments, or findings but are not necessarily identical.

Overlap may be legitimate when:

the new article represents a clearly distinct scholarly contribution;
the earlier work is appropriately cited;
the relationship between the works is disclosed;
the new article provides substantial additional analysis or interpretation; and
applicable copyright requirements are satisfied.

3.7 Legitimate Text Reuse

Some degree of textual reuse may be legitimate in scholarly writing.

Examples may include:

standard methodological descriptions;
technical terminology;
established definitions;
descriptions of research instruments;
necessary descriptions of a previously established framework;
brief quotations that are appropriately attributed;
unavoidable conventional language; or
limited reuse that is transparently acknowledged and justified.

Legitimate reuse should not be used to conceal substantial duplication or to present previously published scholarship as new.

4. Core Policy

MAJIS maintains a strict policy against plagiarism and inappropriate redundant or duplicate publication.

All submitted manuscripts must:

be original;
accurately acknowledge sources;
properly attribute ideas and quotations;
disclose relevant prior publications;
disclose substantial overlap with previous work;
comply with copyright requirements;
avoid duplicate submission;
avoid presenting recycled material as novel;
accurately represent the novelty and contribution of the manuscript; and
comply with the journal's publication-ethics requirements.

JOSI similarly states a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication and subjects submissions to originality screening. MAJIS adopts the same fundamental principle while applying contextual editorial assessment rather than relying exclusively on a numerical similarity threshold.

5. Plagiarism

5.1 Forms of Plagiarism

Plagiarism may include, but is not limited to:

a. Direct plagiarism

Copying words or passages from another source without quotation marks and appropriate citation.

b. Mosaic plagiarism

Combining phrases, sentences, or structures from multiple sources without appropriate attribution.

c. Inadequate paraphrasing

Changing only a small number of words or rearranging sentence structures while retaining the original author's expression or argument without adequate attribution.

d. Idea plagiarism

Presenting another researcher's distinctive idea, interpretation, theoretical proposition, or conceptual contribution as one's own.

e. Data plagiarism

Using another researcher's data, dataset, findings, or empirical material without appropriate attribution or permission.

f. Figure and table plagiarism

Reproducing or adapting figures, tables, diagrams, or other visual materials without appropriate attribution and, where required, permission.

g. Translation plagiarism

Translating another author's work into another language and presenting it as original scholarship without appropriate attribution.

h. Structural plagiarism

Adopting the distinctive structure, organisation, argumentation, or conceptual architecture of another work without adequate acknowledgment.

6. Plagiarism in Literary and Linguistic Scholarship

Because MAJIS publishes research in literature, language, and related humanities fields, plagiarism may take forms beyond conventional copying of prose.

Potential concerns include:

unattributed literary interpretations;
appropriation of another scholar's theoretical argument;
copying original translations;
reproducing another researcher's close reading without attribution;
reproducing distinctive analytical frameworks;
unattributed use of archival transcriptions;
copying annotations;
reproducing another scholar's corpus or classification without acknowledgment;
copying original linguistic analyses; and
presenting another scholar's critical argument as an original interpretation.

The Editorial Office will assess such cases in their scholarly context.

7. Text Recycling

7.1 General Principle

MAJIS recognises that some reuse of an author's own previously published wording may occur legitimately.

However, authors must not use text recycling to:

artificially increase the number of publications;
make previously published material appear new;
conceal substantial duplication;
avoid proper citation;
circumvent copyright restrictions;
mislead readers about the novelty of an article; or
inflate the apparent originality of a manuscript.

7.2 Text Recycling in the Introduction

Limited reuse of background material may sometimes be acceptable where necessary for continuity.

However, substantial reproduction of a previously published introduction should normally be avoided.

If previously published concepts or arguments are reused, the earlier work should be appropriately cited.

The new article should clearly establish its distinct scholarly contribution.

7.3 Text Recycling in the Literature Review

Authors should not reproduce large sections of their previous literature review merely to create a new article.

Where previous scholarship is relevant, authors should:

update the literature;
reassess previous arguments;
identify new developments;
explain the relevance of earlier work; and
cite their previous publication appropriately.

A literature review should support the specific scholarly purpose of the new manuscript rather than reproduce an earlier review substantially unchanged.

7.4 Text Recycling in the Methods Section

Some reuse of methodological language may be legitimate, particularly where:

the same research method is used;
the method is standardised;
methodological terminology is conventional; or
a previously established procedure needs to be described accurately.

Nevertheless, authors should cite the earlier publication where the method was previously described in detail.

Where the reused text is substantial, authors should disclose the relationship between the publications.

COPE recognises that text recycling may be more acceptable in certain methodological contexts than in sections where originality of argument or findings is central.

7.5 Text Recycling in Results

Substantial recycling in the results section is generally problematic because it may indicate duplication of previously published findings.

If previously published data are reused, authors must:

disclose the earlier publication;
explain the scientific justification;
identify what is new;
distinguish new analysis from previously published findings; and
comply with applicable copyright requirements.

COPE states that text recycling is generally unacceptable in results when it duplicates previously published data; where the same data are reused, the matter may constitute redundant publication rather than merely text recycling.

7.6 Text Recycling in the Discussion

Some limited reuse may occur where necessary to establish continuity with previous work.

However, the discussion of a new article should primarily address:

the new findings;
their interpretation;
their relationship to current scholarship; and
their new scholarly implications.

Large-scale recycling that presents old interpretations as new is inappropriate.

7.7 Text Recycling in the Conclusion

The conclusion should normally represent the contribution and findings of the current article.

Substantial recycling of conclusions from a previous publication is generally inappropriate, particularly where it gives the impression that previously established conclusions are new.

8. Reuse of Previously Published Data

Reuse of previously published data requires particular care.

Authors must disclose:

the source publication;
the relationship between the datasets;
which data are reused;
which data are new;
the reason for reuse; and
the new contribution of the present study.

Examples of potentially legitimate reuse may include:

reanalysis using a substantially different methodology;
a clearly defined new research question;
additional data;
extended longitudinal analysis;
new theoretical interpretation; or
a substantially different scholarly contribution.

However, the reuse must be transparent.

COPE's guidance distinguishes legitimate reanalysis or extension from redundant publication and recommends that significant duplication of data be evaluated according to the nature and significance of the overlap.

9. Reuse of Figures and Tables

Authors must disclose the source of previously published figures and tables.

Where a figure or table is reproduced:

the original source must be cited;
the relationship to the previous publication must be explained where relevant;
copyright permission must be obtained where required; and
the figure or table must not be presented as newly created if it is substantially unchanged.

Reproduction of previously published figures or tables may raise both publication-ethics and copyright concerns.

10. Redundant Publication

MAJIS considers redundant publication to be a serious publication-ethics concern where a manuscript substantially duplicates previously published work without adequate justification or transparency.

Potential indicators include:

substantially identical data;
substantially identical findings;
substantially identical research questions;
substantially identical tables or figures;
substantially identical conclusions;
substantial overlap in argumentation; or
deliberate concealment of the earlier publication.

The Editorial Office will consider both the extent and significance of the overlap.

11. Salami Publication

Salami publication refers to dividing one body of research into multiple publications that contain insufficiently distinct scholarly contributions.

Salami publication may be problematic where:

the same dataset is divided into several papers without adequate justification;
the resulting papers have substantially overlapping findings;
the relationship between the papers is not disclosed; or
the fragmentation artificially inflates the publication record.

A research project may legitimately produce multiple publications when each publication addresses a distinct research question and makes a substantive independent contribution.

In such cases, authors should cite and disclose related publications.

12. Duplicate Submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to MAJIS and another journal.

The prohibition applies even when:

the title has been changed;
minor wording has been changed;
the author order has been modified;
the manuscript has been reformatted; or
the manuscript has been translated.

Duplicate submission undermines the integrity of peer review and may result in simultaneous processing or publication.

MAJIS's Author Guidelines similarly require submitted manuscripts not to be under consideration elsewhere simultaneously.

13. Previous Conference Publications

Conference dissemination does not automatically constitute duplicate publication.

However, authors must disclose relevant conference publications.

Particular attention is required where a conference proceeding contains:

a full article;
substantially identical data;
substantially identical findings;
an ISBN or ISSN;
a formally published proceedings paper; or
a DOI.

Authors must explain how the submitted MAJIS manuscript differs from the conference publication.

14. Theses and Dissertations

A thesis or dissertation is not automatically treated as equivalent to a journal publication for purposes of this policy.

However, authors should disclose where a manuscript is substantially derived from a thesis or dissertation.

The journal may consider such submissions provided that:

the scholarly contribution is appropriately presented;
relevant prior work is cited;
authorship is accurate;
copyright obligations are satisfied; and
the manuscript does not misrepresent previously disseminated material as entirely new.

15. Preprints

MAJIS permits manuscripts that have previously appeared as legitimate preprints, subject to its Preprints Policy.

A preprint should not automatically be treated as duplicate publication.

However, authors must disclose the preprint at submission and provide its:

title;
authors;
server;
DOI or persistent identifier;
URL; and
relevant version information.

Where a preprint is subsequently published in MAJIS, the preprint should, where technically possible, link to the published Version of Record.

16. Translations

A translated version of a previously published article must not be presented as an entirely original publication without disclosure.

Where a translated publication is academically justified, authors must:

identify the original publication;
cite it clearly;
explain that the manuscript is a translation or substantially based on an earlier publication;
obtain required copyright permission; and
ensure that the target journal permits such publication.

The Editorial Office will assess whether the translated work makes an appropriate scholarly contribution and whether publication would create redundancy.

17. Similarity Screening

All manuscripts submitted to MAJIS may undergo similarity screening before or during editorial processing.

The journal may use recognised plagiarism-detection software to identify potentially overlapping text.

Similarity screening is intended to identify material requiring editorial assessment.

A similarity report does not by itself establish:

plagiarism;
misconduct;
redundant publication; or
copyright infringement.

18. Interpretation of Similarity Reports

Editors and editorial staff should examine the sources contributing to similarity.

The assessment should distinguish between:

properly cited quotations;
references and bibliographic entries;
common scholarly terminology;
standard expressions;
methodological language;
legitimate author self-overlap;
legitimate prior publication;
substantive unattributed overlap; and
potentially problematic duplication.

The percentage generated by software should therefore be treated as an indicator rather than as a final ethical judgment.

JOSI likewise notes that similarity reports require human oversight and that a similarity score does not automatically establish plagiarism.

19. Similarity Threshold

MAJIS does not treat a single similarity percentage as a universal definition of plagiarism.

Where the journal establishes an operational similarity threshold for initial screening, that threshold should be regarded as a screening trigger, not as proof of misconduct.

The Editorial Office may investigate:

manuscripts below the screening threshold where substantive plagiarism is suspected; and
manuscripts above the threshold where the similarity is legitimate.

The journal should publish any operational threshold separately in its Author Guidelines if such a threshold is adopted.

20. Exclusions in Similarity Screening

Where technically appropriate, similarity screening may exclude:

bibliography/reference lists;
properly identified quotations;
common phrases;
standard methodological expressions; and
other categories determined by the Editorial Office.

However, exclusions must not be configured in a manner that conceals potentially problematic overlap.

The Editorial Office retains responsibility for evaluating the complete manuscript.

21. Pre-Publication Procedure for Suspected Plagiarism

Where potential plagiarism is identified before publication, the Editorial Office should:

Step 1 — Review the Similarity Report

Identify the source or sources of the overlap.

Step 2 — Assess the Nature of the Overlap

Determine whether the overlap involves:

words;
ideas;
data;
figures;
tables;
structure; or
other intellectual material.

Step 3 — Assess Attribution

Determine whether the source has been properly:

cited;
quoted;
paraphrased; or
acknowledged.

Step 4 — Assess Extent and Significance

Determine whether the overlap is:

minor;
moderate;
substantial; or
pervasive.

Step 5 — Contact the Authors Where Appropriate

Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to explain significant suspected overlap before a final decision is made, except where the evidence is sufficiently clear that immediate action is justified.

Step 6 — Determine Action

Possible outcomes include:

request for revision;
clarification;
correction of attribution;
rejection;
referral under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy; or
other appropriate action.

22. Pre-Publication Procedure for Suspected Redundant Publication

When substantial overlap with another publication is identified, the Editorial Office should:

obtain documentary evidence of the earlier publication;
compare the publications;
assess the extent and nature of overlap;
contact the corresponding author;
request an explanation;
determine whether the overlap is legitimate and adequately disclosed;
assess whether copyright issues exist; and
determine appropriate editorial action.

COPE's redundant-publication guidance similarly recommends obtaining documentary evidence and giving authors an opportunity to respond before determining further action.

23. Minor Overlap

Minor overlap may be handled through:

author clarification;
revision;
additional citation;
correction of attribution; or
other proportionate editorial action.

Examples may include:

conventional methodological wording;
a short previously used definition;
limited overlap in introductory material;
standard descriptions of a research procedure; or
other legitimate scholarly language.

Minor overlap should not automatically result in rejection.

24. Substantial Plagiarism

Where substantial plagiarism is established before publication, MAJIS may:

reject the manuscript;
document the decision;
notify the corresponding author;
request an explanation;
refer the matter to the relevant institution where appropriate; and/or
take further action under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

The severity of the response should reflect:

extent of plagiarism;
significance of the material;
intentionality where reasonably established;
whether data or ideas were appropriated;
whether the conduct appears systematic; and
the authors' response.

25. Post-Publication Plagiarism

If plagiarism is identified after publication, MAJIS will investigate the concern.

The investigation may involve:

examination of the published article;
comparison with the original source;
consultation with the authors;
consultation with relevant institutions where appropriate;
assessment of copyright;
assessment of the extent of plagiarism; and
assessment of whether the article remains reliable.

Where plagiarism is confirmed and sufficiently serious, MAJIS may retract the article.

JOSI likewise identifies plagiarism as a ground for retraction when confirmed after publication.

26. Post-Publication Redundant Publication

Where an article is suspected of redundant or duplicate publication after publication, MAJIS will investigate the relationship between the publications.

The Editorial Office should consider:

which article was published first;
extent of overlap;
similarity of data;
similarity of findings;
similarity of figures and tables;
whether the later article provides a substantive new contribution;
whether the earlier work was disclosed;
whether copyright issues exist; and
whether the overlap appears deliberate or inadvertent.

COPE's current flowchart recommends different responses depending on whether the overlap is minor, legitimate, or major, including correction, retraction, or an Expression of Concern where appropriate.

27. Post-Publication Text Recycling

Text recycling discovered after publication should be assessed according to:

amount of recycled text;
location of the text;
whether the source was cited;
whether the recycled material contains the central contribution;
article type;
copyright implications;
whether readers could be misled; and
whether the article's scholarly conclusions remain valid.

Not every instance of text recycling requires retraction.

Appropriate responses may include:

no action;
correction;
clarification;
editorial note;
Expression of Concern; or
retraction,

depending on the circumstances.

COPE specifically recommends case-by-case assessment rather than treating all text recycling as equivalent.

28. Expression of Concern

MAJIS may publish an Expression of Concern where:

serious concerns about plagiarism or redundant publication exist;
an investigation is ongoing;
the evidence is inconclusive;
institutional investigation is required;
the investigation is expected to take substantial time; or
readers need to be alerted to a significant concern regarding the reliability or integrity of the article.

An Expression of Concern is not itself a finding of misconduct.

It should be updated or replaced when the investigation is resolved.

29. Retraction

Retraction may be considered where there is clear evidence that an article is unreliable because of:

substantial plagiarism;
major redundant publication;
duplicate publication;
substantial data duplication;
fabrication or falsification;
major ethical violations; or
another serious publication-ethics problem.

Retraction decisions will be handled according to MAJIS's Retraction and Expression of Concern Policy.

JOSI identifies plagiarism and redundant publication among the circumstances that may warrant retraction.

30. Correction

A correction may be appropriate where the problem can be resolved without invalidating the article as a whole.

Examples may include:

missing citation;
incomplete acknowledgment;
minor text recycling that requires clarification;
incorrect attribution;
incorrect bibliographic information; or
another error that does not invalidate the article.

Where appropriate, the correction should identify the relevant change transparently.

31. Copyright and Plagiarism

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are related but distinct issues.

An act may constitute plagiarism even where copyright has not been infringed.

Conversely, copyright infringement may occur even where the source is cited.

Authors must therefore comply with both:

attribution requirements; and
copyright requirements.

The journal's Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing Policy governs rights and permissions concerning third-party material.

32. Plagiarism and AI-Assisted Writing

The use of generative AI does not alter the author's responsibility for originality and proper attribution.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted text does not:

reproduce third-party copyrighted material improperly;
reproduce unattributed ideas;
fabricate references;
reproduce distinctive passages without attribution;
obscure the origin of scholarly arguments; or
otherwise compromise academic integrity.

Authors must comply with the MAJIS Generative AI Policy.

33. Plagiarism and Translated Sources

Authors must cite translated sources appropriately.

Translating another researcher's:

argument;
theoretical framework;
interpretation;
passage;
analysis; or
other intellectual contribution

does not make that contribution original.

Where a translated quotation or interpretation is used, the original source should be identified where appropriate.

34. Citation Manipulation and False Attribution

Authors must not use citation practices to conceal plagiarism or redundant publication.

Examples include:

citing a previous article without identifying substantial reused content;
citing an unrelated source to create an appearance of attribution;
manipulating references to obscure the origin of an argument;
omitting the most relevant earlier publication; or
misrepresenting another scholar's work.

Such practices may be investigated under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

35. Disclosure of Related Publications

Authors must disclose publications that are substantially related to the submitted manuscript.

The disclosure should include:

title;
authors;
journal or publication venue;
publication date;
DOI or other identifier;
relationship to the submitted manuscript; and
explanation of the new contribution.

Authors should provide copies of closely related publications when requested by the Editorial Office.

This requirement enables editors to distinguish legitimate development of research from redundant publication.

36. Author Declaration

At submission, authors should confirm:

Originality and Publication Declaration

We confirm that the submitted manuscript is original and has not been published previously in a manner that would constitute duplicate or redundant publication. The manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

We have disclosed all publications, preprints, conference papers, theses, or other scholarly outputs that are materially related to the submitted manuscript. Where any text, data, figures, tables, ideas, or other material has been reused from our previous work, the source has been appropriately cited and the nature of the reuse has been disclosed.

We accept responsibility for ensuring that the manuscript does not contain plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, or other forms of undisclosed substantial overlap.

37. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for:

ensuring originality;
accurately citing sources;
obtaining permissions where necessary;
disclosing related publications;
identifying reused material;
explaining substantial overlap;
ensuring that manuscripts are not simultaneously submitted elsewhere;
ensuring that previously published data are transparently identified;
ensuring that authorship is accurate;
responding honestly to editorial queries; and
cooperating with investigations.

Authors must not assume that ownership of copyright gives unrestricted permission to republish previously published material.

38. Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating with co-authors to ensure that:

the manuscript's publication history is accurately disclosed;
related publications are identified;
all authors are aware of potential overlap;
responses to editorial inquiries are accurate; and
relevant permissions have been obtained.

The corresponding author should not independently conceal material information concerning previous publication.

39. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

applying this policy consistently;
evaluating similarity reports critically;
distinguishing legitimate overlap from misconduct;
requesting clarification where appropriate;
maintaining confidentiality;
giving authors a fair opportunity to respond;
escalating serious cases appropriately;
following COPE-relevant procedures; and
protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editors should not make a misconduct determination solely on the basis of an automated similarity percentage.

40. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify:

suspected plagiarism;
substantial similarity to another publication;
duplicate publication;
undisclosed prior work;
suspicious reuse of data; or
other significant publication-ethics concerns.

Reviewers should provide evidence where possible and should not publicly accuse authors of misconduct.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality while the matter is being assessed.

41. Responsibilities of the Editorial Office

The Editorial Office is responsible for:

conducting or coordinating similarity screening;
maintaining screening records;
ensuring appropriate editorial assessment;
communicating with authors;
preserving relevant evidence;
escalating serious cases;
maintaining confidentiality; and
coordinating post-publication actions where necessary.

The Editorial Office should ensure that similarity-detection systems are used consistently and responsibly.

42. Institutional Notification

MAJIS may contact an author's institution or relevant research-integrity body where:

serious misconduct is suspected;
plagiarism is extensive;
redundant publication appears deliberate or systematic;
authors fail to cooperate with a legitimate investigation;
institutional investigation is necessary; or
the circumstances warrant institutional involvement under applicable ethical procedures.

Any institutional communication should be factual, neutral, and supported by available evidence.

43. Confidentiality and Fair Process

Investigations into suspected plagiarism or redundant publication should be conducted confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

The journal should:

avoid premature public accusations;
communicate concerns to relevant authors;
provide an opportunity for explanation where appropriate;
consider documentary evidence;
maintain records;
avoid conflicts of interest; and
make proportionate decisions.

The objective is to protect both the integrity of the scholarly record and the rights of authors to fair consideration.

44. No Automatic Reliance on Similarity Percentage

MAJIS does not equate similarity with misconduct.

For example, a manuscript may have a relatively high similarity percentage because of:

references;
quotations;
common terminology;
names of literary works;
titles;
standard definitions;
methodological language; or
other legitimate overlap.

Conversely, a manuscript may have a relatively low similarity percentage while still containing serious plagiarism of:

ideas;
translated arguments;
distinctive interpretations;
data;
figures; or
structure.

Therefore, editorial judgment remains essential.

45. Proportionate Responses

MAJIS will seek to apply proportionate responses based on the seriousness of the concern.

Possible responses include:

Minor concern

clarification;
citation;
revision;
correction.

Moderate concern

substantial revision;
rejection;
formal warning;
referral for further investigation.

Serious concern

rejection;
institutional notification;
investigation under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy;
Expression of Concern;
correction; or
retraction.

The appropriate response depends on the facts of each case.

46. No Presumption of Intent

Similarity or overlap does not automatically establish that an author acted deliberately.

The journal may consider whether the issue appears to have resulted from:

misunderstanding of citation practices;
editorial error;
inadequate disclosure;
careless reuse;
legitimate scholarly development;
deliberate concealment; or
systematic manipulation.

However, the absence of demonstrable intent does not necessarily make substantial plagiarism or redundant publication acceptable.

The journal's primary concern is the integrity and accuracy of the scholarly record.

47. Relationship with Allegations of Misconduct Policy

Cases involving serious plagiarism, redundant publication, or systematic text recycling may be handled under MAJIS's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

That policy governs the broader investigation of research and publication misconduct.

This policy provides the specific framework for:

identifying overlap;
assessing similarity;
distinguishing plagiarism from text recycling;
evaluating redundant publication; and
determining appropriate editorial responses.

48. Relationship with Retraction Policy

Where a published article is found to contain serious plagiarism or redundant publication, MAJIS will follow its Retraction and Expression of Concern Policy.

Retraction should be used where necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

The original article should remain identifiable in the journal archive, with the retraction status clearly indicated rather than silently deleting the article.

49. Relationship with Post-Publication Corrections

Where a problem does not invalidate the article but requires clarification, MAJIS may issue a correction or editorial notice under its Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy.

The journal will distinguish between:

correction;
clarification;
Expression of Concern; and
retraction.

The action taken will depend on the nature and significance of the problem.

50. Policy on Text Recycling by Article Type

The acceptability of limited text recycling may vary according to article type.

For example:

Research Articles

The main research question, analysis, results, and conclusions should be genuinely distinct from previously published work.

Review Articles

Substantial reproduction of a previous review is generally inappropriate unless transparently justified and permitted.

Conceptual Articles

Previously published theoretical arguments should be clearly identified and developed substantially if incorporated into a new contribution.

Commentary or Opinion Articles

Previously published arguments should not be presented as new opinions or interpretations without disclosure.

COPE recommends that editors apply similar principles to non-research articles while considering the particular characteristics of the article type.

51. Acceptable Development of Previous Research

MAJIS recognises that legitimate scholarly research often develops cumulatively.

A new manuscript may build on an author's previous publication when it provides a meaningful new contribution, such as:

new research questions;
new data;
new theoretical interpretation;
new corpus;
new methodology;
new comparative analysis;
expanded analysis;
new geographical or cultural context;
extended time period; or
substantive reinterpretation.

In such cases, authors must clearly cite the earlier work and explain the distinction between the publications.

52. Examples of Potentially Acceptable Reuse

Subject to appropriate attribution and copyright compliance, potentially acceptable reuse may include:

a brief description of a previously established methodology;
limited repetition of standard definitions;
a necessary quotation from an author's earlier work;
reuse of a research framework where its prior publication is acknowledged;
an expanded study using additional data;
a new analysis of previously collected material where the new research question is substantive; or
a translation where the original is fully identified and relevant permissions are obtained.

These examples are not automatic permissions. Each case must satisfy applicable ethical and copyright requirements.

53. Examples of Potentially Problematic Reuse

Potentially problematic practices include:

copying large portions of an earlier article without citation;
submitting substantially the same article to multiple journals;
publishing the same dataset and conclusions as separate articles without disclosure;
changing the title of a previously published article while retaining substantially the same content;
splitting one study into multiple minimally distinct papers;
recycling an earlier conclusion as a new finding;
reproducing previously published figures without permission;
translating a published article without identifying the original;
disguising overlap through extensive paraphrasing; or
omitting a directly relevant previous publication.

54. Scholarly Record and Transparency

The purpose of this policy is not merely to detect wrongdoing.

It is also intended to ensure that readers can understand:

what research is new;
what research has previously been published;
how studies relate to one another;
where data originated;
how arguments have developed; and
which version represents the authoritative scholarly record.

Transparent citation and disclosure are therefore central requirements.

55. Policy Review

MAJIS will periodically review this policy in light of:

developments in publication ethics;
COPE guidance;
developments in similarity-detection technology;
changes in scholarly communication;
developments in AI-assisted writing;
author and reviewer feedback;
changes in copyright practices; and
emerging standards in literary, linguistic, cultural, and humanities publishing.

Any substantial revision will be communicated through the journal website and relevant author documentation.

56. Final Statement

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to protecting the originality, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

Plagiarism, substantial redundant publication, duplicate publication, and inappropriate text recycling are inconsistent with the journal's publication-ethics standards.

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts:

represent original scholarship;
acknowledge the contributions of others;
disclose related publications;
distinguish new findings from previously published findings;
identify reused material transparently;
comply with copyright requirements; and
are not simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

MAJIS recognises that not every instance of textual similarity constitutes plagiarism or misconduct. Similarity-detection software is therefore used as an initial screening and investigative tool rather than as an automatic decision-making mechanism.

The journal distinguishes plagiarism, redundant/duplicate publication, and text recycling because they involve different ethical and scholarly considerations. In particular, text recycling may sometimes involve limited and legitimate reuse, whereas substantial duplication of data or findings may constitute redundant publication.

The assessment of suspected overlap will consider the:

extent of overlap;
location of overlap;
nature of the material;
significance to the article's contribution;
attribution and disclosure;
copyright implications;
article type;
relationship between publications; and
reliability of the scholarly record.

Where concerns arise, MAJIS will seek to follow a fair, confidential, evidence-based, and proportionate process. Authors may be asked to provide clarification or documentary evidence. Serious cases may be referred for investigation under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy and may result in rejection, correction, institutional notification, an Expression of Concern, or retraction, depending on the circumstances.

For published articles, MAJIS will prioritise the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record. Retraction or correction will not be used as a punitive measure alone, but as an editorial mechanism to ensure that readers are not misled about the originality, reliability, or publication history of scholarly work.

This policy is informed by COPE guidance on plagiarism, redundant publication, and text recycling. COPE specifically recommends contextual, case-by-case assessment of text recycling and distinguishes it from plagiarism and redundant publication.

Through this policy, MAJIS seeks to uphold a scholarly publishing environment in which originality is respected, prior scholarship is properly acknowledged, legitimate development of research is encouraged, and the published record remains accurate, transparent, and trustworthy.