PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY POLICY

Plagiarism and Research Integrity Policy

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran (DIAJAR), published by Yayasan Pendidikan Penelitian Pengabdian Algero, values originality, transparency, academic integrity, and responsible scholarly communication. This policy explains how the journal checks manuscripts for originality and what happens when a concern arises.

Manuscripts may be screened for text similarity and for other integrity concerns before or during editorial evaluation and peer review. Plagiarism, inappropriate reuse of text, fabricated or falsified research, and manipulation of citations may lead to editorial action under the Publication Ethics policy of the journal. Authors are encouraged to check their own manuscripts with a similarity tool before they submit, and to submit the Letter of Originality that declares that the work is original.

1. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism means presenting the words, ideas, data, arguments, images, results, creative work, or other contributions of another person as your own, without proper credit, citation, quotation, or the permission that is required. It may be intentional, or it may result from careless or incomplete attribution. Authors are responsible for identifying every source they use and for acknowledging it accurately.

2. Forms of Plagiarism

The forms of plagiarism listed below are examples and are not exhaustive.

Form	Description
Direct plagiarism	Copying text word for word without quotation marks and without a citation.
Paraphrasing without attribution	Rewording the work of someone else without giving credit to the source.
Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism	Combining or lightly changing material from one or more sources without acknowledging them.
Unattributed ideas	Using the theories, ideas, or interpretations of others without credit.
Improper use of data	Using data, statistics, or analytical results without acknowledging their source.
Improper use of protected material	Using figures, images, tables, maps, questionnaires, tests, scales, learning modules, or other instruments and materials without attribution or without the required permission.
Quotation misrepresentation	Presenting quoted material without marking it clearly as a quotation.
Source misrepresentation	Giving citations that are inaccurate or misleading.
Translation plagiarism	Translating text from another language, for example from English into Indonesian or the reverse, and presenting it as original writing without attribution.
Unauthorized authorship	Submitting work that was written by someone else, including the use of paid writing services.
Inappropriate text recycling	Reusing your own published text without proper disclosure and citation.

The use of generative AI tools to write or to rewrite text must follow the Generative AI Policies of the journal.

3. Text Recycling, Articles Based on Theses, and Redundant Publication

Authors must disclose and cite their own earlier published work whenever they reuse it. Substantial duplication of earlier work may be treated as inappropriate text recycling or as redundant publication. A limited overlap may be acceptable, especially in standard descriptions of a method. When the editors assess an overlap, they consider how much material is duplicated, where it appears in the manuscript, the context, the attribution, whether the overlap is necessary, and its scholarly significance.

An article that is based on the thesis or dissertation of the author should say so, for example in the Acknowledgements section, and it should be rewritten as an article rather than copied from the thesis. The same manuscript must not be submitted to another journal at the same time.

4. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts undergo editorial screening for originality. The journal uses similarity checking software, namely Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker X. A similarity percentage is only a screening signal and is never proof of plagiarism. An editor or an authorized member of the editorial staff reviews each similarity report. The review considers the source, the amount, the location, and the nature of the matches, together with the attribution and the context, and not only the overall score.

Some matches are acceptable. Examples are bibliographies and reference lists, correctly quoted text, common terminology, standard statements of a method, the names of institutions, and legitimate references to earlier publications.

Similarity indicator

Manuscripts are normally expected to show a low overall similarity. A similarity result of approximately 15 percent or higher may lead to additional editorial examination. This is not an automatic rejection threshold. A manuscript below 15 percent may still contain plagiarism, and a manuscript above 15 percent may contain only acceptable matches. The final judgment is made by the editors.

5. Other Forms of Research Misconduct

The following forms of misconduct are also treated as serious, even when there is no plagiarism.

1. Fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data, including data collected from students, teachers, or other participants.
2. Manipulation or duplication of figures or images.
3. Fabricated or falsified references and DOIs.
4. Manipulation of citations.
5. Undisclosed duplicate or redundant publication.
6. Inappropriate authorship practices, as described in Authorship and Contributorship.
7. Manipulation of the peer review process.
8. Deliberate misrepresentation of the methods, the ethical permission and consent, the participants, the findings, or the sources.

These cases are handled under the Publication Ethics and Allegations of Misconduct policies.

6. Editorial Screening Procedure

1. Screening. The manuscript is checked with similarity and integrity tools.
2. Human assessment. An editor reviews the matched passages and their sources.
3. Clarification. The authors may be asked to explain the matches, correct them, add citations, rewrite the text, or provide documentation.
4. Editorial decision. The outcome is proportionate to the seriousness of the concern.

7. Action Before Publication

Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may do the following.

1. Ask the authors for clarification.
2. Ask for corrected citations or attribution.
3. Require the rewriting or revision of overlapping material.
4. Ask for data, permissions, or supporting documents.
5. Pause the editorial evaluation while a concern is examined.
6. Reject the manuscript if substantial plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, or another serious form of misconduct is established.

8. Action After Publication

Concerns may also be investigated after an article has been published. Depending on the findings, the possible responses are listed below, and they follow the Correction and Retraction policy.

1. A correction or a corrigendum.
2. An expression of concern, while an investigation has not been resolved.
3. A retraction, when the published record is substantially unreliable or when serious misconduct has been proven.
4. Notification of the institutions or authorities concerned.
5. Other proportionate steps to protect the scholarly record.

Automated Screening and Human Oversight

Automated tools support the editors but do not decide whether misconduct has occurred. Qualified editors make the final decisions on suspected plagiarism, inappropriate reuse of text, fabricated references, concerns about the use of AI, and other forms of misconduct.

Screening Policy Summary

Item	Policy
Plagiarism screening	Yes, for all manuscripts
Screening tools	Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker X
Similarity indicator	About 15 percent or higher may lead to additional review
Automatic rejection based on a percentage	No
Final assessment	Human editorial evaluation

Our Commitment

DIAJAR judges concerns about similarity on the basis of evidence and context and not on a percentage alone. When a concern is confirmed, the journal responds in proportion to its seriousness. Questions about this policy can be sent to the editorial office at jurnal.diajar@gmail.com. The Peer Review Process page and the Author Guidelines explain how screening fits into the review and submission process.