Originality Plagiarism and Overlapping Publication

Clinical Medicine and Pharmacology requires an accurate account of what is new in a submission and how it relates to earlier work. Originality includes the honest attribution of ideas, methods, text, images and data. It is not measured simply by how many words differ from an existing publication.

Attribution and repeated material

Authors cite the source of borrowed ideas and evidence and clearly identify quoted language. Reusing a table, clinical image, questionnaire or substantial text may also require permission. Repeated methods descriptions should be transparent and proportionate. Translated copying, unattributed paraphrase and reuse of another person’s clinical observations are subject to the same scrutiny as copying in the original language.

Related reports and duplicate submission

A manuscript must not be under consideration by another journal at the same time. The cover letter identifies related publications, manuscripts, preprints, protocols, theses, abstracts and registry results arising from the same participants or dataset. Authors provide copies when requested and explain the distinct question and contribution. Dividing a cohort into minimally different papers without a justified scientific purpose can mislead readers about the amount of independent evidence.

Clinical datasets and secondary analyses

A secondary analysis can be valuable when the original study is cited, the relationship is explicit and the new question is meaningful. Authors disclose shared recruitment periods, trial identifiers and overlapping participants. A conference abstract or appropriately disclosed preprint does not automatically prevent consideration. An authorised secondary publication or translation requires transparent labelling and appropriate agreement; it must not appear to be a second original study.

Images citations and supporting evidence

Clinical images and laboratory figures must represent the source evidence faithfully. Adjustments should not obscure or manufacture a feature, and relevant processing should be described. Authors retain originals and disclose reused panels. Citation choices must reflect intellectual relevance; adding references to satisfy an editor, reviewer or publisher’s citation targets is unacceptable. Retracted literature should be identified when its use is necessary to the argument.

Screening clinical manuscripts

CMP screens English manuscript text with Turnitin. An applicable similarity report must show no more than 30 percent, and an applicable AI-writing report must separately show no more than 30 percent. The indicators measure different aspects of eligible text and are not averaged. Neither a low percentage nor a well-written disclosure establishes that patient observations, source images or clinical references are authentic.

For each check, the editor records the submitted version, report date, service settings and source comparisons. Protocol language, correctly attributed quotations, reference lists and a disclosed preprint can explain matches, but an exclusion must have a recorded scholarly basis. Shared recruitment dates, tables of outcomes and diagnostic images require direct comparison with related reports. Staff must not omit suspect passages from the assessed file or change settings merely to lower the result. Short or otherwise unsupported content receives documented manual assessment; an absent or inconclusive AI result is never entered as zero.

Resolving a report before publication

Exceeding either screening limit stops ordinary progression while the editor examines the highlighted material. The author receives the specific concern and normally has 14 calendar days to explain it, provide source records or supply relevant drafting history. A clinical source check may require a protocol, a published comparator, an original image or an account of how patient outcomes were recorded; identifiable evidence must use the restricted verification route.

A correctable attribution problem can lead to an honest revision and a fresh report. A false positive or an inapplicable detector result requires a reasoned human determination recorded in the file. An unresolved breach can lead to rejection, but the detector does not itself establish misconduct. A small copied clinical result can remain serious below the threshold. Any restriction on future submissions needs a reasoned, individual decision and a route of challenge.

Concerns about a published clinical record

A later adverse report opens an integrity case rather than removing the article automatically. CMP distinguishes a match to the article’s own published text from unattributed earlier material and asks the authors to respond to the relevant evidence. An independent qualified editor considers the reliability and ethical publishability of the clinical record. Substantiated plagiarism, materially undisclosed or prohibited AI use, or another breach satisfying the journal’s retraction grounds leads to the linked notice required by Corrections Retractions and Postpublication Discussion.

An APC is not refunded when retraction results from substantiated author misconduct or an author-attributable serious breach of the originality or AI requirements, subject to mandatory legal rights. The correction decision is not negotiated against payment. Evidence and handling decisions may be challenged through cmpappeals@jandoopress.com; the integrity reporting route is cmpintegrity@jandoopress.com.

Last updated: 17 September 2026