Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism Policy

1. Scope

JSLA publishes only original scholarship that fully attributes the words, ideas, data, and images of others. This policy applies to every submission and to all published content, including figures, tables, and supplementary files, and binds authors, reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial and advisory boards alike. It remains in force after publication for the lifetime of the published record.

2. What the Journal Regards as Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another person's language, ideas, methods, data, or images in a manner that presents them as the author's own, whether by verbatim copying, by the assembly of a passage from unacknowledged fragments, or by paraphrase that preserves the substance and structure of a source without attribution. The definition extends to the appropriation of ideas encountered in unpublished manuscripts, grant applications, or private communication; to the reuse of figures, audiograms, spectrograms, radiological images, tables, or datasets generated by others without attribution and, where copyright subsists, without licence; and to the undisclosed translation of work published in another language.

The journal treats text recycling as a breach of comparable seriousness. Authors who reuse their own previously published text, data, or analyses must cite the earlier work. Duplicate publication, and the division of a single coherent study into multiple submissions in order to inflate output, distort the evidence base by suggesting a greater volume of independent evidence than in fact exists, and are handled under this policy accordingly.

3. Author Warranties

On submission, the corresponding author warrants on behalf of all authors that the manuscript is original, is not under consideration elsewhere, cites all sources, and reproduces third-party material only with any permission that is required. Overlap with the authors' own earlier work, and any prior dissemination as a thesis, preprint, registered report, or conference abstract, must be disclosed in the cover letter with the relevant citation or identifier. Prior dissemination of this kind does not disqualify a submission; failure to disclose it does. Direct quotation must be marked and cited to the page, and used only where the original wording is material to the argument.

4. Screening

Every manuscript is screened for textual similarity using professional detection software before editorial assessment, again following major revision where substantial new text has been introduced, and once more before production and assignment of a DOI. Manuscripts failing initial screening are rejected at the desk stage. Reports generated at each stage are retained in the confidential editorial file for not less than five years from the date of decision, irrespective of outcome, and are made available to indexing bodies, regulators, and institutional integrity offices on legitimate request.

5. Thresholds and Editorial Judgement

The journal applies an overall similarity threshold of 19 percent, exclusive of the reference list, with no single source contributing more than 5 percent. Correctly attributed quotations, standard instrument items, and short incidental matches are excluded where the software permits such filtering.

A similarity index is a screening signal, not a finding of misconduct. Detection software measures string overlap; it cannot distinguish an attributed quotation from an appropriation, nor a conventional methodological phrase from a borrowed argument. Every report is therefore read by an editor, and decisions rest on the located matches rather than the index alone. A manuscript below the threshold may still be rejected where an unattributed source or idea has been identified, and one above it may be accepted where the overlap is confined to properly cited or unavoidably standard material. Authors are entitled to a reasoned explanation of any decision taken on these grounds.

6. Consequences

Limited overlap in background or methodological text, appearing to reflect inexperience rather than intent, is returned to the authors with the annotated report for rewriting and correct attribution, and the revised manuscript is re-screened. Substantial overlap, particularly where it affects results, discussion, or interpretation, results in rejection. Evidence of deliberate misappropriation, of the presentation of another investigator's data as the authors' own, or of repeated breach after warning results in rejection, suspension of the authors' other submissions, written referral to their institutions and funders, and, where the Editorial Board so determines, a submission embargo of between two and five years. No adverse finding is recorded before the authors have received the relevant extracts and sources and have been given fifteen working days to respond.

7. Concerns After Publication

Allegations concerning published work are assessed on the evidence presented rather than the identity of the person raising them, and are acknowledged within three working days. The journal seeks a written response from the authors and aims to conclude its assessment within eight weeks, informing the parties where more time is required. A limited attribution failure that does not affect the validity of the findings is addressed by a citable correction linked to the original article. Where a substantial part of an article is plagiarised or duplicates an earlier publication, the article is retracted by a freely accessible notice that states the grounds and distinguishes misconduct from honest error. Retracted articles are not removed; they remain online and in preservation archives, clearly marked, so that the record stays complete and citable. Where a matter cannot be resolved promptly, an Expression of Concern is published and updated on conclusion. Indexing services and archives are notified in every case.

8. Reviewers, Editors and Automated Tools

Reviewers who identify apparent overlap should notify the handling editor confidentially, with the source where possible, rather than approaching the authors. Manuscripts under review are privileged communications and may not be retained, circulated, or drawn upon in a reviewer's or editor's own work. Editors with any personal, professional, financial, or institutional interest in a submission must declare it and withdraw. Submissions from editors and board members are screened under the same thresholds and handled independently of the authoring editor. The use of paraphrasing or text-generation tools to disguise material taken from another source is treated as plagiarism; authors remain personally accountable for every sentence and every citation submitted under their names, and the permitted uses of such technologies are governed by the journal's Generative AI Policy.

9. Appeals and Contact

Authors who consider a decision under this policy procedurally unfair or factually mistaken may appeal in writing to editor@linkjsla.com. Appeals are acknowledged within three working days and ordinarily resolved within two to four weeks by an editor not involved in the original decision. This policy is read alongside the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, which prevails in the event of inconsistency.