Plagiarism Policy

The International Journal of Business Operations and Management Studies maintains a strict, zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism, data fabrication, and redundant publication. Academic theft compromises the integrity of scholarly communication and dilutes the value of genuine empirical discoveries.

To safeguard the high scientific benchmarks required by global citation databases, every manuscript undergoes systematic, multi-stage screening to verify absolute originality prior to entering the formal peer-review queue.

1. Defining Forms of Misconduct

The journal aligns its investigations and corrective actions with the definitions and flowcharts provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Misconduct under this policy is categorized into four primary areas:

1.1 Direct Plagiarism

The verbatim or near-verbatim copying of sentences, paragraphs, data points, or structural research frameworks from an existing source without using quotation marks or providing immediate, explicit bibliographic attribution.

1.2 Mosaic Plagiarism (Patchwriting)

The practice of weaving texts, concepts, or statistics from multiple external sources into a manuscript while modifying only a few words or altering sentence structures to disguise the original authorship. This remains a severe ethical violation if the source material is not cited.

1.3 Text Recycling (Self-Plagiarism)

The duplicate publication of an author’s own previously published text, datasets, or theoretical findings in a new manuscript without transparent disclosure. While background literature may overlap slightly, submitting an existing framework or repeating identical empirical analyses to inflate publication metrics is an unacceptable practice.

1.4 Redundant or Duplicate Submission

The simultaneous submission of the identical manuscript, or a manuscript relying on the exact same core hypothesis and empirical data, to more than one journal or conference proceeding concurrently.

2. Automated Screening and Evaluation Thresholds

The journal employs a formalized evaluation matrix to intercept unoriginal text during the administrative pre-check phase.

                  [Manuscript Officially Submitted]
                                 │
                                 ▼
              [Crossref Similarity Check Screening]
                                 │
         ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
         ▼                                               ▼
 [Under 15% Similarity Index]                     [Over 15% Similarity Index]
 (No individual source > 2%)                      (Or localized text blocks found)
         │                                               │
         ▼                                               ▼
[Proceed to Desk Evaluation]                     [Editorial Integrity Review]
                                                         │
                                    ┌────────────────────┴────────────────────┐
                                    ▼                                         ▼
                        [Minor Uncited Strings]                     [Systemic Plagiarism]
                        (Return to Author for Fix)                  (Immediate Outright Reject)

2.1 The iThenticate Screening Framework

Every submitted document is processed through Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate). This automated system cross-references the manuscript against millions of published academic papers, conference proceedings, dissertations, and institutional repositories.

2.2 Interpretation of Similarity Index Metrics

The journal does not rely on a single percentage score to determine ethical compliance; instead, a managing editor reviews the generated similarity report line by line. However, the journal utilizes the following baseline guidelines:

  • Acceptable Index (Typically under 15%): The manuscript displays a low overall similarity score, and no individual matching source contributes more than 2% of the content. Common mathematical equations, standard methodology names, and properly cited references are excluded from this threshold.

  • Actionable Index (Over 15% or localized overlap): If the overall index is high, or if any single unacknowledged external source accounts for a clustered block of text, the manuscript is flagged for editorial review.

3. Disciplinary Action Framework

When a breach of this policy is confirmed by the Editorial Board, disciplinary actions are executed based on the severity of the infraction and the stage of the publication workflow.

Discovery Stage Action Taken Formal Consequences
Pre-Review Stage Immediate administrative desk rejection of the manuscript. A formal warning is issued to all co-authors. The corresponding author must submit a written explanation within 14 business days.
Under-Review Stage Immediate termination of the peer-review process; reviewers are notified of the cancellation. The author's institutional affiliation or dean may be formally notified via a COPE-compliant institutional letter if the explanation is unsatisfactory.
Post-Publication Stage The article undergoes the formal Article Retraction Workflow. The online Version of Record is permanently watermarked as "RETRACTED," and a dedicated Retraction Notice detailing the plagiarism is linked via Crossref to the DOI.

4. Legitimate Uses of Prior Work (The Exception Rule)

The journal recognizes that academic writing relies on building upon existing foundations. Authors can utilize prior work legally and ethically by adhering to strict documentation conventions:

  • Verbatim Text: Any phrase or sentence copied directly from another source must be enclosed within quotation marks and accompanied by an inline citation featuring a specific page number.

  • Dissertations and Theses: If a submission is derived from the author's own university dissertation or Master's thesis, this relationship must be explicitly stated on the title page and noted within the introduction, ensuring full transparency.