1. Policy Principles

Authors submitting manuscripts to IJVEA must ensure that their work is original and that all materials derived from other sources are appropriately quoted, paraphrased, cited, and acknowledged.

The journal distinguishes between legitimate textual similarity and plagiarism. Similar wording may occur because of properly quoted material, reference lists, standard terminology, established methodological descriptions, institutional names, legal documents, or commonly used technical expressions.

Conversely, plagiarism may occur even when the overall similarity percentage is low. A small amount of overlap may still represent serious misconduct when it involves original ideas, distinctive arguments, research findings, data, images, or conclusions taken without proper attribution.

2. Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software and manual editorial assessment. The purpose of this examination is to identify potentially problematic overlap that requires further evaluation.

Similarity screening may identify:

• verbatim copying without quotation or citation;
• closely paraphrased material without attribution;
• substantial reuse of previously published work;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• recycling of previously published sections by the same authors;
• overlap with theses, dissertations, conference proceedings, reports, or repositories;
• unattributed translation from another language;
• reuse of tables, figures, images, instruments, or datasets without proper acknowledgment;
• references or citations copied without verification;
• patterns suggesting manuscript or authorship manipulation.

A similarity report indicates textual matches. It does not, by itself, establish whether plagiarism has occurred.

3. Screening Stages

Similarity and plagiarism concerns may be assessed at several stages of the publication process.

1. 1

   Initial Submission Screening

   The manuscript may be screened before it is assigned for external peer review. Manuscripts with substantial or suspicious overlap may be returned for clarification, revision, or editorial rejection.

2. 2

   Editorial Assessment

   Editors examine the similarity report together with the manuscript, identified sources, citation practices, and relevant publication history.

3. 3

   Peer Review Stage

   Reviewers may confidentially notify the editor when they identify possible plagiarism, unattributed ideas, duplicated findings, or substantial similarity with another work.

4. 4

   Revision Screening

   Revised manuscripts may be screened again when substantial text has been added or when the initial evaluation identified overlap requiring correction.

5. 5

   Pre-Publication Verification

   The editorial office may conduct a final examination before publication, particularly when new concerns arise during copyediting or proofreading.

6. 6

   Post-Publication Assessment

   Published articles may be investigated when credible evidence of plagiarism or duplicate publication is reported after publication.

4. Screening Software

IJVEA uses INSERT ACTUAL SCREENING SOFTWARE to support the identification of textual similarity and potentially overlapping publications.

The software may compare submitted manuscripts against:

• published journal articles;
• conference proceedings;
• books and book chapters;
• institutional repositories;
• theses and dissertations;
• web pages and online documents;
• documents available within the software database.

The coverage and accuracy of similarity-detection software are limited by the content available in its database. The absence of a detected match does not prove that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

5. Interpretation of Similarity

Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team and are not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism. Editors evaluate the location, nature, source, context, and extent of textual overlap before making an editorial decision.

Editorial assessment may consider:

• whether the matching material is properly quoted and cited;
• whether the overlap occurs in original analysis or routine terminology;
• whether the source is the author's own previous publication;
• whether readers could be misled about the origin of the material;
• whether the overlap concerns ideas, methods, data, results, or conclusions;
• whether multiple small matches form a systematic pattern;
• whether substantial sections have been translated without attribution;
• whether reused material has appropriate permission and licensing;
• whether the overlap affects the originality or reliability of the manuscript.

5.1 Material Commonly Excluded or Interpreted Separately

The following material may be excluded from the numerical report or interpreted separately when appropriate:

• reference lists and bibliographies;
• properly formatted direct quotations;
• article titles and institutional names;
• standard declarations and ethical statements;
• common technical terminology;
• standardized instrument names;
• routine methodological phrases that have limited alternative wording;
• legitimate descriptions of established formulas, standards, or procedures.

Excluding such material does not mean that all reuse within these sections is automatically acceptable. Editors may still investigate unusual or extensive overlap.

5.2 Similarity Percentage

IJVEA may use internal similarity indicators to identify manuscripts requiring closer assessment. Such indicators are screening tools, not automatic acceptance or rejection criteria.

A high similarity percentage may be acceptable when the matches consist mainly of references, quotations, standard terminology, or transparently cited material. A low percentage may be unacceptable when it conceals the unattributed use of a central idea, dataset, argument, figure, or conclusion.

6. Unacceptable Practices

6.1 Inappropriate Reuse of the Author's Own Work

Authors may refer to their previous publications when relevant, but previous work must be cited in the same manner as the work of other researchers.

Reuse may be considered inappropriate when:

• substantial text is copied without citation;
• previously published findings are presented as new findings;
• the same dataset is reused without disclosure;
• overlapping manuscripts are submitted simultaneously;
• copyright or licensing requirements are violated;
• readers are misled about the originality of the publication.

7. Assessment Procedure

When potential plagiarism or inappropriate overlap is identified, IJVEA applies a documented and proportionate assessment process.

1. Identification of the concern. The editor records the source, location, type, and apparent extent of the overlap.
2. Manual comparison. The manuscript is compared with the identified source or sources.
3. Contextual assessment. The editor determines whether the overlap is quoted, cited, standard, necessary, misleading, or potentially inappropriate.
4. Preliminary classification. The issue is classified as acceptable similarity, correctable attribution error, substantial inappropriate overlap, or possible serious misconduct.
5. Author clarification. When necessary, the corresponding author is asked to provide a written explanation and supporting documentation.
6. Additional consultation. The editor may consult another editor, reviewer, research-integrity adviser, or relevant subject expert.
7. Editorial determination. The editor determines an action proportionate to the evidence, seriousness, and stage of publication.
8. Documentation. The concern, explanation, assessment, and editorial decision are documented in the journal's editorial records.

7.1 Author Response

Authors may be asked to respond within a specified period. Their response should address:

• the origin of the matching material;
• whether the source was cited;
• whether permission was obtained where necessary;
• whether the material appeared in an earlier publication;
• whether the same manuscript or dataset was submitted elsewhere;
• what corrections the authors propose.

Failure to respond or provide requested documentation may result in suspension of the editorial process, rejection, withdrawal, or further investigation.

8. Editorial Actions

Editorial action depends on the nature, extent, location, and seriousness of the overlap. The following categories are illustrative and do not function as automatic numerical thresholds.

IJVEA distinguishes deliberate misconduct from honest citation mistakes. Nevertheless, authors remain responsible for verifying the originality and attribution of all submitted content.

9. Resubmission Rules

9.1 Manuscripts Returned for Technical Correction

A manuscript returned because of limited citation, quotation, or formatting problems may be resubmitted within the existing submission record when permitted by the editor.

Authors must provide:

• a corrected manuscript;
• a description of the changes made;
• proper citations and quotation formatting;
• permission documentation where required;
• disclosure of related publications;
• any additional information requested by the editor.

9.2 Manuscripts Rejected for Plagiarism

A manuscript rejected because of substantial or deliberate plagiarism must not be resubmitted as a new manuscript merely after superficial rewriting.

Resubmission may be prohibited when:

• the central intellectual contribution was misappropriated;
• major sections were copied from one or more sources;
• duplicate publication was intentionally concealed;
• data, images, or findings were reused without authorization;
• the authors provided misleading explanations;
• the manuscript represents repeated ethical misconduct.

9.3 Substantially Redeveloped Manuscripts

In exceptional cases, the editor may permit submission of a substantially redeveloped manuscript. Permission does not guarantee acceptance or peer review.

The authors must:

1. disclose the previous submission;
2. provide the previous manuscript identification number;
3. explain how the plagiarism concern was resolved;
4. identify all material that has been rewritten or removed;
5. submit the manuscript for a new similarity and editorial assessment.

Attempting to evade an earlier decision by changing the title, author order, corresponding author, or account information may be treated as additional misconduct.

10. Post-Publication Plagiarism

IJVEA evaluates credible plagiarism allegations even when they are received after an article has been published.

10.1 Reporting a Concern

A report should identify:

• the IJVEA article concerned;
• the allegedly copied source;
• the relevant pages, paragraphs, figures, tables, or data;
• the nature of the suspected overlap;
• supporting documentation or links.

10.2 Investigation

The journal may:

1. compare the published article with the identified source;
2. preserve relevant editorial and publication records;
3. contact the corresponding author for an explanation;
4. request responses from all authors;
5. consult independent experts;
6. contact institutions, publishers, or other journals when necessary;
7. assess whether the integrity of the article has been materially affected.

10.3 Possible Outcomes

Depending on the findings, IJVEA may:

• take no further action when the concern is not substantiated;
• publish a clarification;
• publish a correction with appropriate attribution;
• publish an expression of concern during an unresolved investigation;
• retract the article when plagiarism seriously undermines its integrity;
• notify the authors' institutions or relevant publishers;
• apply restrictions to future submissions.

10.4 Retraction

Retraction may be appropriate when plagiarism affects a substantial part of the article, misappropriates central ideas or findings, constitutes duplicate publication, or makes the article's originality and reliability fundamentally misleading.

The retraction notice will identify the affected article, state the reason for retraction, and remain permanently linked to the published record.

The original article will normally remain accessible but will be clearly marked as retracted. Full-text removal will be considered only when necessary because of legal, privacy, safety, or other exceptional concerns.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal a plagiarism-related decision when they believe that the similarity report was interpreted incorrectly or that relevant evidence was not considered.

An appeal must:

• identify the manuscript or article;
• state the decision being appealed;
• explain the specific grounds for reconsideration;
• identify the disputed source or overlap;
• provide supporting evidence;
• remain professional and evidence-based.

An appeal may be assessed by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original determination. Additional expert assessment may be requested where necessary.

Disagreement with a similarity percentage alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal. The appeal must address the nature, attribution, context, or interpretation of the identified material.