Plagiarism Policy

Journal EPiC is committed to maintaining academic integrity and protecting the originality of the scholarly record. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any form. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts properly acknowledge the ideas, words, data, and other contributions of others.

1. Definition and Scope

Plagiarism occurs when an individual presents another person’s work or intellectual contribution as their own without appropriate acknowledgment. This policy applies to all components of a manuscript, including its text, mathematical arguments, data, tables, figures, images, and supplementary materials.

Practices prohibited under this policy include:

Copying text from another source without appropriate quotation or identification and attribution.
Paraphrasing another person’s ideas or arguments without acknowledging the original source.
Reproducing data, figures, tables, images, mathematical proofs, or other scholarly material without appropriate acknowledgment and, where required, permission.
Translating material from another language and presenting it as an original contribution without attribution.
Combining unattributed passages from multiple sources or making superficial wording changes to conceal copying.
Submitting a manuscript written by another person as the authors’ own scholarly work.

2. Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for the originality and accuracy of their submissions. All sources must be cited appropriately, and direct quotations must be clearly identified. A citation alone does not justify presenting copied passages as original wording.

Authors must obtain permission for third-party material when required and comply with applicable copyright and licensing conditions. They should disclose related publications and previously disseminated material that overlap with the submitted manuscript.

3. Similarity Screening

Manuscripts may be screened using text-similarity tools during editorial assessment, peer review, or preparation for publication. The editorial team may also examine suspected overlap identified by reviewers, readers, or other parties.

A similarity report is a screening aid, not a final determination of plagiarism. Editorial assessment considers the matched sources, the location and extent of overlap, attribution, quotation practices, and the originality of the manuscript’s contribution.

Similarity involving references, properly identified quotations, standard terminology, or conventional methodological descriptions should be evaluated in context. A low overall similarity score does not establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism, and a high score does not automatically establish misconduct.

4. Text Recycling and Duplicate Publication

Text recycling refers to the reuse of an author’s own previously disseminated wording. It is assessed separately from plagiarism of another person’s work. Its acceptability depends on the amount and location of reused text, the acknowledgment of the original source, the manuscript’s new contribution, and applicable copyright conditions.

Limited reuse of necessary methodological descriptions may be considered when transparently disclosed and appropriately attributed. Substantial undisclosed reuse, particularly when it misrepresents the originality of findings or conclusions, is not acceptable.

Duplicate or redundant publication involves substantial overlap in previously published data, findings, or scholarly contributions without adequate justification and disclosure. Authors must identify related work and clearly explain how the submitted manuscript differs from it.

5. Handling Concerns Before Publication

When suspected plagiarism or inappropriate overlap is identified before publication, the editorial team will assess the evidence and determine an appropriate response. The assessment may include the following steps:

Compare the manuscript with the identified source material and document the relevant overlap.
Request an explanation from the corresponding author and, where appropriate, the other authors.
Evaluate the response together with the extent, nature, and significance of the overlap.
Determine whether revision, rejection, or further investigation is warranted.

Limited attribution or quotation problems may require correction before further consideration. Substantial plagiarism or serious misrepresentation of originality may result in rejection. Where warranted, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution or research integrity office.

6. Handling Concerns After Publication

Concerns raised after publication will be assessed using the available evidence and an appropriate opportunity for the authors to respond. Editorial action will depend on the seriousness of the issue and its effect on the integrity of the published record.

Possible actions include a correction for a limited problem, an expression of concern when a serious matter remains unresolved, or retraction when substantial plagiarism or redundant publication undermines the article’s integrity. Any notice should explain the reason for the action and be linked to the affected article.

7. Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

Readers, reviewers, and other concerned parties may report suspected plagiarism through the journal’s official editorial contact. Reports should identify the manuscript or article, the suspected original source, and the passages or materials requiring review.

Reports will be handled with appropriate confidentiality and impartiality. Decisions will be based on evidence rather than unsupported allegations or similarity percentages alone.

8. Editorial Guidance

In assessing suspected plagiarism and text recycling, the editorial team will refer to relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including: