Plagiarism Issue

The Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation (JAFTCI) does not tolerate plagiarism, inappropriate appropriation of intellectual contributions, or misleading reuse of previously published work. Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, tables, figures, images, or scientific contributions without proper acknowledgment. Inadequately disclosed reuse of an author's own previously published material may also constitute inappropriate text recycling or redundant publication.

JAFTCI requires all authors to verify manuscript originality before submission and provide a valid Similarity Report as part of the submission documentation. The journal evaluates potential plagiarism through similarity screening, examination of matching sources, verification of citations, and assessment of the scientific and ethical context of the identified overlap.

🔍 01. Similarity Screening

JAFTCI implements manuscript similarity screening as part of its academic integrity and publication ethics procedures. Authors must independently examine the originality of their manuscripts before submission, while the editorial office reserves the right to conduct additional similarity assessments during manuscript evaluation.

A similarity index indicates the proportion of text that matches sources identified by the selected detection software. The similarity percentage does not independently establish plagiarism. A low similarity score does not guarantee originality, and a high score does not automatically prove research misconduct.

Editors examine:

  • The location, extent, and nature of textual overlap.
  • The concentration of matching passages within individual sources.
  • Whether quotations, paraphrases, and citations are appropriately acknowledged.
  • Whether similarities involve standard terminology, references, established methods, or substantive scientific analysis.
  • Whether research ideas, data, tables, figures, or other intellectual contributions have been used without attribution.
  • Whether previously published material has been reused transparently and ethically.

📄 02. Mandatory Pre-Submission Similarity Checking

Every author submitting a manuscript to JAFTCI must conduct an independent plagiarism and similarity check before submission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript has been examined using a recognized academic similarity detection tool and that the identified textual matches have been appropriately reviewed.

Authors must examine the originality of their manuscripts, verify the accuracy of citations, identify inappropriate textual overlap, and correct any deficiencies in source attribution before submitting the final manuscript.

✅ Mandatory Author Requirements

  1. Complete the manuscript using the official JAFTCI article template.
  2. Perform a similarity assessment before manuscript submission.
  3. Examine highlighted passages and their corresponding sources.
  4. Correct inappropriate textual similarities and inaccurate source attribution.
  5. Ensure that quotations, paraphrases, data, tables, and figures are appropriately acknowledged.
  6. Generate a valid Similarity Report corresponding to the submitted manuscript.
  7. Upload the Similarity Report through the official JAFTCI Online Journal Systems submission platform.

The submission of a similarity assessment report does not replace the author's responsibility to ensure originality, appropriate attribution, and compliance with recognized standards of scientific publication ethics.

💻 03. Recognized Plagiarism and Similarity Detection Tools

JAFTCI recognizes the following plagiarism and academic similarity detection platforms for pre-submission manuscript screening. Authors may select one of these services according to its availability and their authorized access, provided that the selected service can produce a sufficiently detailed and verifiable similarity assessment report.

🔍 1. Compilatio

Compilatio provides document similarity analysis to identify overlapping textual passages and matching sources. Its services support originality verification and academic integrity assessment in educational and scholarly environments.

🔗 https://www.compilatio.net/en/

📑 2. Turnitin

Turnitin provides similarity analysis by comparing submitted documents against available academic publications, institutional repositories, and online sources. Its Similarity Report identifies matching passages for academic interpretation.

🔗 https://www.turnitin.com/

📚 3. iThenticate

iThenticate is a similarity screening platform designed for scholarly publishing, research institutions, and academic manuscripts. It assists authors and editorial teams in identifying overlapping text before scientific publication.

🔗 https://www.ithenticate.com/

🧾 4. Copyleaks

Copyleaks provides plagiarism detection and content similarity analysis for academic, educational, and professional applications. Its plagiarism checking services help identify matching text and corresponding sources.

🔗 https://copyleaks.com/plagiarism-checker

📖 5. Scribbr Plagiarism Checker

Scribbr offers manuscript similarity assessment and source matching for academic writing. Its full plagiarism checking service provides detailed similarity information to help authors identify and review potential attribution problems.

🔗 https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism-checker/

🔎 6. Quetext

Quetext provides plagiarism checking services using contextual text analysis and source matching. Authors may use its available originality assessment features to identify potential textual duplication.

🔗 https://www.quetext.com/

🛡️ 7. StrikePlagiarism

StrikePlagiarism provides academic similarity analysis, matching-source identification, and document originality assessment. Its Similarity Report supports examination of overlapping passages and scholarly integrity concerns.

🔗 https://strikeplagiarism.com/en/

🧪 8. PlagiarismCheck.org

PlagiarismCheck.org offers document originality assessment and text similarity detection for academic and educational purposes. Its available reporting features support the identification and examination of matched textual content.

🔗 https://plagiarismcheck.org/

⚠️ Similarity Detection Tool Requirements

Authors may select any one of the eight specified services, provided that the service offers a report suitable for editorial verification. A limited preview, unsupported percentage claim, or undocumented screening result is not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory Similarity Report requirement.

Access conditions, report availability, and service charges vary between providers. JAFTCI does not require authors to purchase a particular commercial product, and the journal does not charge authors for its own editorial originality screening.

📤 04. Mandatory Similarity Report Submission

The corresponding author must upload a valid Similarity Report during manuscript submission through the official JAFTCI Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The report is required as supporting editorial documentation and must correspond to the submitted manuscript.

Required Similarity Report Information

  1. The title or filename of the screened manuscript.
  2. The name of the plagiarism or similarity detection software.
  3. The overall similarity percentage or equivalent assessment result.
  4. The identification of matching sources where supported by the software.
  5. The screening date or sufficient information to verify the assessment.
  6. A report corresponding to the manuscript submitted to the journal.
  7. A readable and authentic report, preferably provided in PDF format.

Mandatory Submission Notice: Manuscripts submitted without a valid Similarity Report may be returned to the corresponding author for completion of the required documentation before proceeding to external peer review.

Similarity Reports should be uploaded as supporting editorial files, accessible to authorized editors. Such reports should not be unnecessarily included in anonymized manuscripts distributed to external reviewers.

📊 05. Similarity Index Thresholds and Editorial Actions

For preliminary editorial screening, JAFTCI uses the following similarity-index categories. These thresholds guide manuscript assessment and must be interpreted in conjunction with the examination of matching sources, citation accuracy, and the scientific context of textual overlap.

✅ Low Similarity

Below 10%

Proceed to Editorial Assessment

The manuscript may proceed to further editorial evaluation when the identified matches are properly attributed. A low similarity score does not guarantee originality or manuscript acceptance.

⚠️ High Similarity

10–40%

Correction and Rescreening

The manuscript may be returned to the authors for correction of problematic overlap, improvement of source attribution, and subsequent similarity reassessment.

🚫 Critical Similarity

Above 40%

Rejection After Examination

Editors examine the matching sources and relevant evidence. Where extensive inappropriate borrowing or serious plagiarism is substantiated, the manuscript is rejected.

Similarity Screening Target

Authors whose manuscripts require correction should aim to submit a revised Similarity Report with an index below 10%, consistent with the journal's editorial screening target.

Numerical compliance does not establish academic originality. Legitimate textual similarities, including properly cited quotations, standard scientific terminology, bibliographic references, and transparently disclosed earlier versions, must be evaluated in context.

Authors must not manipulate Similarity Reports, conceal relevant matching sources, or alter screening settings solely to produce a lower percentage. Any exclusions applied during similarity checking must be consistent, transparent, and academically justified.

⚖️ 06. Editorial Assessment

Similarity screening results must be interpreted alongside the manuscript, relevant source documents, and applicable academic standards. The editorial team examines whether matched passages involve legitimate quotation, standard scientific language, incomplete attribution, inappropriate textual reproduction, or substantive intellectual borrowing.

Authors may be requested to explain identified similarities, correct inaccurate source attribution, disclose related publications, provide supporting documents, or submit a revised manuscript accompanied by an updated Similarity Report.

Editorial Principle: Rewording or paraphrasing existing material does not resolve plagiarism when the underlying ideas, scientific findings, research data, or intellectual contributions remain unattributed. Accurate acknowledgment of original sources is required regardless of the similarity score.

📝 07. Actions Before Publication

When potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse is detected before publication, the editorial team determines the appropriate response based on the seriousness of the concern and the available evidence.

  • Request clarification regarding identified matching passages.
  • Require corrections to citations, quotations, and source attribution.
  • Return the manuscript for substantive revision.
  • Request an updated Similarity Report following revision.
  • Suspend manuscript evaluation pending further investigation.
  • Reject the manuscript when serious plagiarism or inappropriate intellectual borrowing is confirmed.

Editorial decisions must be based on documented findings and the nature of the identified misconduct rather than exclusively on numerical similarity thresholds.

📚 08. Actions After Publication

Concerns regarding plagiarism or inappropriate intellectual borrowing identified after article publication are investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Depending on the investigation findings, editorial measures may include clarification, publication of a correction, issuance of an expression of concern, or retraction where justified by the seriousness and implications of the established misconduct.

Post-Publication Integrity: Published articles and editorial records must not be silently altered to conceal plagiarism, inappropriate intellectual borrowing, or material publication errors. Corrections and retractions must be documented transparently.

📂 09. Documentation and Editorial Records

Similarity Reports, matching-source assessments, author explanations, manuscript revisions, originality screening findings, and editorial decisions must be maintained as part of the confidential editorial record.

Authors must submit authentic similarity assessment documents obtained through legitimate access to the selected detection software. Falsification, unauthorized alteration, or misleading presentation of Similarity Reports constitutes a serious violation of academic integrity.

Access to originality assessment records is restricted to authorized editorial personnel according to the journal's confidentiality, privacy, and publication ethics procedures.

✅ 10. Author Declaration and Originality Responsibility

By submitting a manuscript to JAFTCI, the authors confirm that the work represents an original scientific contribution, all relevant external intellectual materials have been appropriately acknowledged, and the manuscript has undergone an independent similarity assessment before submission.

Author Originality Declaration

"We declare that the manuscript submitted to the Journal of Advanced Food Technology, Cultivation, and Innovation (JAFTCI) represents original scholarly work and that all borrowed ideas, quotations, research findings, and intellectual contributions have been appropriately acknowledged.

We confirm that the manuscript has undergone an independent similarity assessment using one of the academic similarity detection platforms identified in the journal's plagiarism policy.

We further confirm that the submitted Similarity Report is authentic, corresponds to the manuscript being evaluated, and has not been falsified or manipulated."

JAFTCI provides manuscript submission, editorial screening, peer review, and publication services without charges to authors (IDR 0,-). Any costs associated with an author's independently selected external plagiarism screening service are not fees imposed by the journal.