Plagiarism Detection Policy

Mandatory screening

Every manuscript submitted to Sapiens in Education undergoes similarity and plagiarism screening before peer review. Screening may be repeated after substantial revision, before acceptance, or whenever a concern arises. Post-publication allegations are examined under the same standard.

Turnitin, iThenticate, or an equivalent system provides technical support. Reports do not automatically accept or reject a manuscript. Editors assess the source, context, extent, concentration, location, and intellectual significance of each match.

Interpretation of similarity scores

Percentages are indicative and never replace academic judgment. References, minor matches, and properly delimited quotations may be excluded before a decision, although an attributed quotation may still be excessive.

Similarity up to 15 percent

Generally acceptable when matches involve properly referenced quotations, references, standard methodological language, or technical terminology. Unattributed copying in results, discussion, conclusions, tables, figures, or data may justify rejection despite a low overall score.

Similarity from 16 to 25 percent

Subject to editorial assessment. Authors may be asked to improve paraphrasing, attribution, quotation marking, or overlap before processing continues and must submit a revised version with an explanation.

Similarity from 26 to 40 percent

Problematic. The manuscript may be returned for substantial revision or rejected according to the source, significance, and location of matched content. Extensive repetition of an author’s earlier work is not acceptable merely because the author is the same.

Similarity above 40 percent

Unacceptable and potentially indicative of plagiarism or redundant publication. The manuscript is normally rejected without external review. If confirmed after publication, correction, expression of concern, or retraction may follow.

Unacceptable practices

Regardless of the total percentage, unacceptable conduct includes unattributed copying of text, ideas, data, methods, tables, figures, or materials; plagiarism in substantive sections; unattributed translation; substantial self-plagiarism; redundant publication; incompatible licensing; salami slicing; fabricated references; false attribution; and concealment of sources.

Procedure when plagiarism is suspected

The editor retains the report for the assessed version, identifies significant matches, and conducts an initial assessment. Where clarification or correction is possible, the corresponding author receives a formal request and deadline and may supply earlier versions, permissions, sources, data, or arguments.

A satisfactory explanation may allow processing to continue after required corrections. Substantial appropriation, concealment, serious duplication, or irreparable loss of originality leads to rejection. Failure to respond may close the file.

Post-publication measures

An allegation is logged and communicated without presuming guilt. Correctable overlap leads to a correction; substantial compromise of originality or reliability leads to retraction. An expression of concern may be used while a material investigation remains incomplete. Serious cases may be reported to affiliated institutions, funders, or other journals, with disclosure limited to necessary information.

Originality statement

By submitting, authors declare that the work is original, all sources are cited, no simultaneous or redundant publication exists, and permissions have been obtained. Breach is a serious publication-ethics matter.

Records and policy review

The journal retains the report, assessed version, editorial analysis, explanations, corrections, and decision. Cases are periodically reviewed for consistency and to prevent mechanical decisions based solely on percentages. Action follows COPE guidance, evidence, and the right to respond. All decisions follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance and international good practice in scholarly publishing.