Originality, Plagiarism and Overlapping Publication

JGTSS publishes contributions whose intellectual content and provenance are honestly represented. Originality involves more than a low percentage in a text-comparison report. It requires appropriate credit, a defensible contribution and a clear account of how the submission relates to prior work, including the authors’ own publications and public drafts.

Attribution and prior dissemination

Authors acknowledge the sources of ideas, text, data, images, instruments and analytical approaches. Verbatim material is marked as quotation and cited; close paraphrase also requires attribution. Translation does not remove the obligation to cite a source. Reusing another researcher’s interview material, coding framework or unpublished argument without permission or credit can be as serious as copying printed text.

A preprint, thesis, working paper or conference abstract does not automatically prevent consideration, but the author discloses it and supplies a link or copy. The submission explains the relationship to any full conference paper, report, book chapter, translated publication or related manuscript. Publication in another language is still prior publication. Any exceptional secondary publication requires prior editorial agreement, appropriate rights, clear labelling and transparent cross-reference; it must not be presented as a new original study.

Duplicate submission and fragmented reporting

A manuscript under consideration at JGTSS must not simultaneously be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors notify the editor of overlapping submissions and publications by the same research team, including those using the same dataset or fieldwork. Separate papers from a shared project may be appropriate when each has a distinct question and contribution and the relationship is clearly explained.

Undisclosed repetition of the same findings, division into minimally different papers and altered author lists used to conceal overlap are unacceptable. Reuse of a limited description of a standard method is assessed in context and requires appropriate attribution. Authors must not manipulate text to avoid detection or remove citations to reduce an apparent similarity score.

Screening and response

The handling editor examines Turnitin matches against the cited and underlying sources. References, genuine quotations and shared technical vocabulary can affect a similarity result; translated copying, stolen ideas or fabricated field evidence may not produce a high percentage. The separate 30 percent screening limits and the procedure that follows them are set out in this policy. Passing either limit does not establish originality, and exceeding one does not by itself prove misconduct.

When overlap raises a material concern, the handling editor preserves the relevant sources, identifies the passages or evidence in question and invites an explanation. Minor correctable attribution problems may be returned for revision; substantial misrepresentation may justify rejection or a formal investigation. For published work, the response is chosen according to the effect on the record and may involve a correction or retraction. The journal does not impose an automatic permanent ban based solely on a software report. Authors and readers can raise an originality concern at jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com with supporting references.

Screening standard and human assessment

JGTSS uses Turnitin to assess similarity and AI-writing indicators in English manuscripts. The stated screening standard is no more than 30 percent for each valid, applicable report. The two percentages have different denominators and are recorded separately. An unavailable report is not zero, and low percentages do not excuse plagiarism, fabricated social evidence or an inaccurate AI declaration.

For each assessment, the handling editor records the manuscript version, report date, service and relevant settings. Highlighted material is checked against its sources. References, valid quotations and a disclosed preprint or previously submitted version may need contextual exclusions, with the reason recorded. Staff must not change settings or remove material merely to force a passing score. The originality of the argument and provenance of field or documentary evidence remain subject to direct assessment.

A result over either screening limit suspends ordinary progression while the editor assesses the concern. The author is ordinarily given 14 calendar days to provide an explanation, source records or drafting evidence. Where a correctable problem exists, the editor may require an honest revision and reassessment. A demonstrated false positive or inapplicable report is resolved through a recorded human decision. An unresolved breach can lead to rejection, but no allegation is treated as proved solely by a detector. Unsupported short or non-prose material is assessed manually and receives no invented AI score.

A published article with an adverse report is referred under Allegations of Research Misconduct. The editor distinguishes matches to the article itself from earlier unattributed material and gives the authors an opportunity to explain the evidence. A qualified independent editor determines whether substantiated plagiarism, prohibited or materially undisclosed AI use, or another serious failure meets the retraction grounds. An author-attributable retraction on those grounds does not qualify for an APC refund, subject to mandatory legal rights. Reports and process decisions may be challenged through jgtssappeals@jandoopress.com.

Last updated: 16 September 2026