PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY POLICY

Jurnal Sains Teknologi dan Sistem Informasi (SATESI) values originality, transparency, academic integrity, and responsible scholarly communication. Manuscripts may be screened for text similarity and other integrity concerns before or during editorial review and peer review. Plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, fabricated or falsified research, and citation manipulation may lead to editorial action under the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

1. DEFINITION OF PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person’s words, ideas, data, arguments, images, results, creative material, or other intellectual contribution as one’s own, without proper acknowledgement, citation, quotation, or permission where permission is legally required. It may be intentional, or it may result from inadequate attribution. Authors are responsible for making sure that every source is accurately identified and acknowledged.

2. FORMS OF PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the following:

  • Direct plagiarism: copying text word for word without quotation marks and citation.
  • Paraphrasing without attribution: restating another person’s work in different words without crediting the source.
  • Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism: combining or lightly altering material from one or more sources without acknowledgement.
  • Unattributed ideas: using the ideas, theories, or interpretations of others without credit.
  • Improper use of data: using data, statistics, or analytical results without appropriate acknowledgement.
  • Improper use of protected material: using figures, images, tables, maps, questionnaires, instruments, or other protected material without attribution or the permission that is required.
  • Quotation misrepresentation: presenting quoted material without marking it as a quotation.
  • Source misrepresentation: giving citations that are inaccurate or misleading.
  • Unauthorised authorship: submitting work written by someone else, including through contract cheating.
  • Inappropriate text recycling: reusing the author’s own previously published text without proper disclosure.

3. TEXT RECYCLING AND REDUNDANT PUBLICATION

Authors must disclose and cite their own previously published work whenever they reuse it. Substantial duplication may be treated as inappropriate text recycling or as redundant publication. Limited overlap can be acceptable, particularly in standardised descriptions of methods.

When overlap is found, editors consider the amount of duplicated material, where it appears in the manuscript, the context, whether it is attributed, whether it is necessary, and its scholarly significance.

4. SIMILARITY AND PLAGIARISM SCREENING

Manuscripts undergo editorial screening for originality. The journal uses similarity screening tools such as Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker X.

A similarity percentage is only a screening indicator. It does not, by itself, establish whether plagiarism has occurred. An editor or an authorised member of staff reviews each similarity report and considers the source, amount, location, and nature of the matches, as well as attribution and context, and not only the overall score.

Some matches are acceptable. These include bibliographies, correctly quoted text, common terminology, standardised statements of methods, institutional names, and legitimate references to earlier publications.

Similarity Indicator
Manuscripts are normally expected to show a low level of overall textual similarity. A similarity result of approximately 15% or higher may lead to additional editorial examination.
This figure is not an automatic rejection threshold. A manuscript below it may still contain plagiarism, and a manuscript above it may contain only legitimate matches. The final judgement is made through human editorial evaluation.

5. OTHER FORMS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

The following are serious forms of misconduct even when they do not amount to plagiarism:

  • fabrication or falsification of data or results, and inappropriate manipulation of data;
  • manipulation or duplication of figures or images;
  • fabricated or falsified references and DOIs;
  • citation manipulation;
  • undisclosed duplicate or redundant publication;
  • inappropriate authorship practices;
  • manipulation of the peer review process;
  • deliberate misrepresentation of methods, ethical approval, participants, findings, or sources.

These matters are handled under the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and the publication ethics guidance that applies.

6. EDITORIAL SCREENING PROCEDURE

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

7. ACTION BEFORE PUBLICATION

Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may:

  • ask the authors for clarification;
  • ask for citations or attribution to be corrected;
  • require overlapping material to be rewritten or revised;
  • request data, permissions, or supporting documentation;
  • suspend editorial evaluation while the concern is examined;
  • reject the manuscript if substantial plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, or other serious misconduct is established.

8. ACTION AFTER PUBLICATION

Concerns may also be investigated after an article has been published. Possible actions include:

  • a correction or corrigendum;
  • an expression of concern while an investigation remains unresolved;
  • a retraction, where the published record is substantially unreliable or serious misconduct has been established;
  • notification of the relevant institutions or authorities;
  • any other proportionate action needed to protect the scholarly record.

AUTOMATED SCREENING AND HUMAN OVERSIGHT

Automated tools support the editorial process but do not determine whether misconduct has occurred. Qualified editors make the final decision on suspected plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, fabricated references, AI-related integrity concerns, and other forms of misconduct.

SCREENING POLICY SUMMARY

Item Policy
Plagiarism screening Yes
Screening tools Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker X
Similarity indicator Approximately 15% or higher may lead to additional review
Automatic rejection based on percentage No
Final assessment Human editorial evaluation

COMMITMENT

SATESI evaluates similarity concerns on the basis of evidence and context, and not on an automated percentage alone. Confirmed cases are handled in proportion to their seriousness, in order to protect authors, readers, reviewers, and the scholarly record.