Similarity & Plagiarism Policy
Submitted manuscripts may be screened using recognized similarity-detection software or other appropriate editorial methods before peer review, during editorial evaluation, or whenever concerns regarding originality arise. Screening may also be repeated after revision when substantial changes have been made to a manuscript.
A similarity report is used as an editorial screening instrument and does not, by itself, establish that plagiarism has occurred. Editors evaluate the location, extent, source, nature, and context of matching text before determining whether overlap is acceptable, requires revision, or constitutes a potential breach of publication ethics.
| Screening Stage | Before peer review and whenever additional editorial assessment is required |
| General Similarity Expectation | Normally not more than 20% overall similarity after appropriate exclusions |
| Single-Source Overlap | Substantial overlap with any individual source is examined separately regardless of the total score |
| Bibliography | May be excluded from the similarity calculation |
| Properly Quoted Material | Evaluated according to attribution, necessity, and context |
| Decision Basis | Qualitative editorial assessment, not similarity percentage alone |
| Post-Publication Concerns | May result in investigation, correction, expression of concern, or retraction |
As a general editorial benchmark, ALFI normally expects the overall similarity of a manuscript to remain at or below 20% after reasonable exclusions such as the bibliography, properly formatted quotations, and unavoidable technical or methodological terminology. This benchmark is intended to support editorial screening and should not be interpreted as an automatic acceptance or rejection threshold.
A manuscript with a similarity score below 20% may still contain plagiarism or inappropriate reuse, while a manuscript with a higher score may contain legitimate overlap that can be adequately explained. Particular attention is therefore given to large blocks of matching text, repeated overlap with a single source, unattributed borrowing of ideas or data, and patterns that indicate inappropriate reuse rather than merely the numerical percentage reported by screening software.
Plagiarism includes the presentation of another person's words, ideas, data, analyses, figures, images, methods, or other intellectual contributions as though they were original to the author. The journal considers both deliberate and materially misleading unattributed reuse to be matters of publication ethics.
Authors must appropriately acknowledge and cite their own previously disseminated work whenever it is relevant to a new submission. Reuse of substantial portions of previously published text, data, figures, analyses, or results without transparent disclosure may constitute inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, or self-plagiarism.
Limited overlap in descriptions of established methods or standardized technical procedures may sometimes be unavoidable. Such overlap will be assessed according to context, necessity, transparency, copyright considerations, and whether the reuse creates a misleading impression that previously disseminated material is entirely new.
Similarity with an author's thesis, dissertation, institutional repository deposit, preprint, conference abstract, conference proceeding, or other legitimate form of prior dissemination is not automatically treated as plagiarism. Authors must nevertheless disclose relevant earlier versions and cite them where appropriate so that editors can evaluate originality, transparency, copyright status, and the extent of new scholarly contribution.
A manuscript developed from earlier academic work must contain sufficient development, analysis, interpretation, or additional contribution to justify publication as a scholarly journal article and must not misrepresent previously disseminated material as entirely new.
Verbatim material taken from another source must be clearly distinguished from the author's own writing and accompanied by appropriate citation. Paraphrasing requires more than replacing individual words or changing sentence order; authors must express the underlying information independently while still acknowledging the original source.
Citation of a source does not automatically make extensive verbatim reproduction acceptable. Authors remain responsible for ensuring that quotations are proportionate, necessary, clearly identified, legally permissible, and consistent with scholarly standards and applicable copyright requirements.
| Acceptable Overlap | Properly attributed quotations, references, standard terminology, appropriately disclosed prior dissemination, or other legitimate overlap may require no further action. |
| Minor Concerns | The manuscript may be returned to the author for correction, improved attribution, rewriting, clarification, or further editorial assessment before peer review proceeds. |
| Substantial Inappropriate Overlap | The manuscript may be rejected when inappropriate copying, misleading text recycling, unattributed use of intellectual material, or substantial redundancy compromises originality or publication integrity. |
| Serious or Repeated Misconduct | The journal may undertake a formal editorial investigation and, where appropriate, contact relevant authors, institutions, research-integrity bodies, publishers, or other competent parties. |
ALFI does not determine plagiarism solely by applying a numerical similarity threshold. A similarity score indicates textual correspondence between documents but cannot independently determine whether the correspondence represents legitimate quotation, appropriately reused methodology, common terminology, a prior version of the same work, improper text recycling, or plagiarism. Final editorial assessment therefore always considers the scholarly and ethical context of the identified overlap.
Authors must not use generative artificial intelligence, automated paraphrasing systems, translation tools, text-spinning software, or other technologies for the purpose of concealing plagiarism, disguising unattributed borrowing, circumventing similarity screening, or misrepresenting previously published material as original work. Regardless of the tools used during manuscript preparation, authors remain fully responsible for appropriate attribution, originality, accuracy, and compliance with the journal's publication ethics requirements.
Allegations of plagiarism or inappropriate reuse received after publication will be assessed in accordance with ALFI's Publication Ethics and post-publication procedures. The journal may request explanations, source documents, original data, previous versions, permissions, or other evidence necessary to evaluate the concern.
Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the matter, appropriate action may include publication of a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, or retraction. Where necessary, the journal may also communicate with the authors' institutions, relevant publishers, research-integrity bodies, or other competent authorities. Any post-publication action will be designed to preserve the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record.
Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Industry (ALFI) is affiliated with Yayasan Kalidaka Cendikia Nusantara and formally published by WISE Pendidikan Indonesia. The journal and publisher support responsible scholarly attribution, originality, transparent editorial assessment, and the protection of the integrity of the published record.
This Similarity & Plagiarism Policy should be read together with ALFI's Publication Ethics, Peer Review Policy, Copyright and Licensing Policy, and other applicable editorial policies. ALFI may revise this policy when necessary to reflect developments in recognized standards of publication ethics, plagiarism assessment, research integrity, and scholarly publishing practice.