Similarity & Plagiarism
Originality & Attribution
Similarity is a screening signal; plagiarism is an editorial judgment.
Decision, Learning, and Human Development (DLHD) expects submitted manuscripts to represent original scholarly work and to acknowledge all sources appropriately. Manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software during editorial assessment and may be rechecked when necessary. Similarity reports are interpreted by editors in context and are not treated as automatic evidence of plagiarism.
Screening Principle
No single percentage determines plagiarism.
A similarity score identifies textual overlap. Editorial assessment considers the source of the match, the amount and location of overlap, citation and quotation practices, disciplinary conventions, and whether the reuse is transparent and justified.
01
Originality
Submitted work should make an original scholarly contribution.
02
Attribution
Words, ideas, data, and intellectual contributions must be credited appropriately.
03
Transparency
Reuse of previously disseminated material must be disclosed and contextualized.
04
Contextual Review
Editors evaluate similarity patterns rather than relying on a percentage alone.
Unacceptable Practice
Forms of plagiarism and inappropriate textual reuse
01
Verbatim Plagiarism
Copying text from another source without appropriate quotation, citation, or attribution.
02
Mosaic or Patchwriting
Closely reproducing the structure, wording, or sequence of another source while making only superficial changes.
03
Idea or Data Plagiarism
Presenting another person's concepts, arguments, datasets, results, methods, or intellectual contribution as one's own.
04
Translation Plagiarism
Translating material from another language and presenting it without appropriate acknowledgment of the original source.
05
Source Concealment
Citing secondary material in a way that obscures substantial dependence on an unacknowledged original source.
06
Inappropriate Text Recycling
Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously disseminated writing without appropriate transparency, citation, or editorial justification.
Similarity Reports
How DLHD interprets similarity findings
DLHD does not apply a universal automatic similarity threshold.
A high similarity score may reflect problematic copying, but it may also include references, quoted material, standard terminology, methodological descriptions, or multiple small matches. Conversely, a low overall score may still contain a serious unattributed match to a single source.
Editors therefore examine the report itself—not only the headline percentage—and consider both the overall pattern and source-specific matches.
01
Location and length of matched passages
02
Number and concentration of matched sources
03
Quotation, citation, and attribution practices
04
Whether overlap affects the article's original contribution
05
Whether reuse is transparent and contextually justified
Context Matters
Not all textual similarity constitutes plagiarism
RF
References & Bibliographic Material
Reference lists, article titles, institutional names, and standard bibliographic information may legitimately overlap with existing sources.
QT
Properly Quoted Material
Limited verbatim material may be acceptable when quotation and attribution are appropriate and the reuse is justified.
MT
Standard Methods Language
Some methodological or technical descriptions may contain conventional phrasing, although authors should still avoid unnecessary copying and cite sources where appropriate.
PR
Prior Dissemination
Material previously appearing in a thesis, repository, preprint, conference output, or related work should be disclosed when relevant and assessed in context.
Text Recycling
Reuse of an author's own previous writing requires transparency
DLHD uses the term text recycling for reuse of an author's own previously disseminated text. Text recycling is evaluated according to its extent, location, originality, transparency, and effect on the scholarly contribution. Limited reuse may sometimes be understandable in highly standardized methodological descriptions, but substantial reuse in the introduction, results, discussion, or conclusion requires particular editorial scrutiny.
Authors should: cite or acknowledge relevant prior work, disclose closely related publications, and avoid presenting previously published text or findings as new.
COPE treats text recycling as a context-dependent issue rather than assuming that every instance is equivalent to plagiarism. Read COPE guidance ↗
Editorial Screening
How similarity concerns are assessed
01
Similarity Screen
A manuscript may be checked using similarity-detection software during editorial assessment.
→
02
Editorial Review
Editors examine matched passages, sources, attribution, and the context of the overlap.
→
03
Author Clarification
Authors may be asked to explain the overlap, revise the manuscript, or provide relevant prior publications.
→
04
Editorial Decision
The editor determines whether the overlap is acceptable, requires revision, or constitutes misconduct.
Editorial Action
Responses are proportionate to the nature and severity of the overlap
Contextual / Acceptable
No integrity action required
Matches are appropriately cited, conventional, minor, or otherwise justified after editorial assessment.
Correctable
Revision or clarification
Authors may be required to rewrite passages, improve attribution, add citations, clarify prior dissemination, or correct inappropriate reuse before further consideration.
Substantial / Serious
Rejection or ethical review
Extensive plagiarism, deceptive reuse, or serious misrepresentation may lead to rejection and further action under the journal's Publication Ethics policy.
In serious or repeated cases, DLHD may request additional documentation, contact relevant authors or institutions, or take other action consistent with its Publication Ethics policy and applicable ethical guidance.
Post-Publication Cases
Plagiarism concerns may also be investigated after publication
If credible evidence of plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse emerges after publication, DLHD will assess the concern under its publication-ethics procedures. Depending on severity and impact on the scholarly record, the journal may publish a correction, other editorial notice, or retraction.
Corrections & Retractions Policy → Author Responsibility
Before submission, authors should verify originality and attribution
Originality Concern
Concerned about plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse?
Contact the DLHD editorial office and identify the relevant manuscript or published article. Where possible, provide the suspected source and enough information to support editorial review.