 |
PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY POLICY
Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi values originality, transparency, academic integrity, and responsible scholarly communication. Manuscripts may be screened for text similarity and for other integrity concerns before and during editorial evaluation and peer review.
Authors are encouraged to check their own manuscripts with a similarity tool before submission, and to send the Letter of Originality together with the manuscript. Serious concerns can lead to editorial action under the Publication Ethics statement.
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 editorial examination |
| Automatic rejection by percentage | No |
| Final assessment | Human editorial evaluation |
| Document from authors | Letter of Originality, submitted with the manuscript |
Contents
1. Definition of Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the presentation of the words, ideas, data, arguments, images, results, creative work, or other contributions of another person as one's own work, without proper credit, citation, quotation, or the permission that is required. It may be intentional, or it may result from careless attribution. In both cases, authors are responsible for identifying every source and for acknowledging it accurately.
2. Forms of Plagiarism
The list below gives examples and is not complete. The examples in the last column come from communication research.
| No. | Form | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Direct plagiarism | Copying text word for word without quotation marks and without a citation. | A paragraph on agenda setting that is copied from a journal article. |
| 2 | Paraphrasing without attribution | Rewording the work of another person without giving credit. | A summary of a framing study in new words, with no citation. |
| 3 | Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism | Combining or slightly changing material from one source or several sources without acknowledgment. | A literature review that is assembled from sentences of several articles. |
| 4 | Unattributed ideas | Using the theories, ideas, or interpretations of others without credit. | Presenting the argument of another scholar as the argument of the author. |
| 5 | Improper use of data | Using data, statistics, or results without citing the source. | Audience figures or survey results from a report that are given without the source. |
| 6 | Improper use of protected material | Using figures, images, tables, maps, questionnaires, tests, scales, coding schemes, or other instruments without credit or without the permission that is required. | A questionnaire, a content analysis codebook, a photograph, or a screenshot of a post that is used without permission or credit. |
| 7 | Quotation misrepresentation | Presenting quoted material without marking it clearly as a quotation. | A statement of an informant or a line from a news article that is not marked as a quotation. |
| 8 | Source misrepresentation | Giving a citation that is inaccurate or misleading. | A reference to a source that does not support the claim, or that does not exist. |
| 9 | Translation plagiarism | Translating a text, for example from English to Indonesian or the reverse, and presenting it as original work without attribution. | A translated section of an international article that is used as the background of the study. |
| 10 | Unauthorized authorship | Submitting work that was written by someone else, including work from a paid writing service. | A manuscript that is bought from a writing service and submitted under the name of the buyer. |
| 11 | Inappropriate text recycling | Reusing one's own published text without disclosure and without a citation. | The same literature review in two articles, with no reference to the first. |
Any use of generative AI to write or to rewrite text must follow the Generative AI Policies.
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 can be treated as inappropriate text recycling or as redundant publication.
- Limited overlap, such as a standard description of a method, can be acceptable.
- Editors consider how much text is duplicated, where it appears, its context, whether it is credited, whether it is necessary, and its scholarly significance.
- An article that is based on a thesis or a dissertation of the author should state this clearly, for example in the acknowledgments. The text must be rewritten as a journal article and must not be copied from the thesis.
- The same manuscript must not be submitted to another journal at the same time.
4. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening
| Point | Policy |
|---|---|
| Scope | Every manuscript goes through an editorial check of its originality. |
| Tools | Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker X. |
| Meaning of the result | A similarity percentage is a screening signal. It is not proof of plagiarism. |
| Review of the report | An editor or an authorized member of the editorial staff reads the report. The editor looks at the source, the amount, the location, and the nature of the matches, and also at attribution and context, and not only at the total score. |
Matches that are normally acceptable
- Bibliographies and lists of references.
- Text that is quoted correctly.
- Common terminology.
- Standard statements of method.
- Names of institutions.
- Legitimate references to earlier publications, including the author's own.
Similarity indicator
Low overall similarity is normally expected. An overall result of about 15 percent or higher may lead to additional editorial examination.
This is not a threshold for automatic rejection. A manuscript below 15 percent can still contain plagiarism, and a manuscript above 15 percent can contain only acceptable matches. The editors make the final judgment.
5. Other Forms of Research Misconduct
The behaviors below are treated as serious, even when no plagiarism is found.
| No. | Behavior |
|---|---|
| 1 | Fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data, including data from respondents, informants, or other participants. |
| 2 | Manipulation or duplication of figures, images, or screenshots. |
| 3 | Fabrication or falsification of references and DOIs. |
| 4 | Manipulation of citations. |
| 5 | Duplicate or redundant publication that is not disclosed. |
| 6 | Inappropriate authorship practices. See Authorship and Contributorship. |
| 7 | Manipulation of the peer review process. |
| 8 | Deliberate misrepresentation of methods, of ethical permission and consent, of participants, of findings, or of sources. |
Such cases are handled under the Publication Ethics statement and the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
6. Editorial Screening Procedure
| Step | Stage | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Screening | Similarity and integrity tools check the manuscript. |
| 2 | Human assessment | An editor reviews the matched passages and the sources. |
| 3 | Clarification | The authors may be asked to explain, correct, cite, rewrite, or document the matched material. |
| 4 | Decision | The outcome is proportionate to the seriousness of the concern. |
This check takes place in the initial evaluation described in the Peer Review Process.
7. Action Before Publication
Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may take one or more of the actions below.
| No. | Action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Ask the authors for clarification. |
| 2 | Ask for corrected citations or attribution. |
| 3 | Require that overlapping material is rewritten or revised. |
| 4 | Ask for data, permissions, or other supporting documents. |
| 5 | Pause the editorial evaluation while the concern is examined. |
| 6 | Reject the manuscript when substantial plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, or other serious misconduct is established. |
8. Action After Publication
A published article can also be investigated, in accordance with the Correction and Retraction policy. The possible responses are shown below.
| No. | Response | When it is used |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Correction or corrigendum | The article contains an error that can be put right. |
| 2 | Expression of concern | An investigation has not been completed, and readers should be warned. |
| 3 | Retraction | The published record is substantially unreliable, or serious misconduct has been proven. |
| 4 | Notification of institutions | The institution or the authority of the authors needs to know about the case. |
| 5 | Other proportionate steps | Any further step that is needed to protect the scholarly record. |
9. Human Oversight, Our Commitment, and Contact
Automated screening and human oversight
Automated tools support the editors, but they do not decide whether misconduct has taken place. Qualified editors make the final decision on suspected plagiarism, inappropriate reuse of text, fabricated references, concerns about the use of AI, and other misconduct.
Our commitment
MUKASI judges a concern about similarity on the basis of evidence and context, and not on a percentage alone. A similarity percentage is only a screening signal, and it is never proof of plagiarism. When a concern is confirmed, the response is proportionate to its seriousness.
Contact and related pages
| Questions about this policy | jurnal.mukasi@gmail.com | jurnal@yp3a.org |
| Letter of Originality | Download the form |
| Preparing a manuscript | Author Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation |
| Review of manuscripts | Peer Review Process |
| Ethics and integrity | Publication Ethics, Authorship and Contributorship, Generative AI Policies |
| Misconduct and errors | Allegations of Misconduct and Correction and Retraction |
