Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism and Originality Policy

Applies to: all 6 EP Journals Group journals.
Effective: 1 May 2026, version 1.0.

1. Plagiarism is grounds for rejection or retraction

Plagiarism — presenting another person's words, ideas, figures, data, or code as your own without proper attribution — is incompatible with publication in Journal of Natural Science Research and Review. This includes:

  • copying text from another publication without quotation marks and citation
  • paraphrasing another author's work closely without citation
  • reusing your own previously published text without disclosure (text recycling, sometimes called "self-plagiarism")
  • copying figures, tables, or data from another source without permission and attribution
  • copying code from a public repository without attribution and license compliance
  • presenting a colleague's unpublished idea (heard at a conference, in a peer review, or in a private exchange) as your own

We treat all of the above as plagiarism whether or not the original author would object.

2. How we screen submissions

Every submission is run through iThenticate via Crossref Similarity Check at the desk-screening stage, before peer review begins. Crossref Similarity Check compares the manuscript text against:

  • a database of more than 95 million scholarly articles, books, and conference papers
  • web content
  • Crossref-deposited content from publishers worldwide

The tool returns a Similarity Index expressed as a percentage of text in the manuscript that matches existing sources, and a detailed source-by-source report.

3. How we interpret the Similarity Index

The raw similarity score is a starting point, not an automatic verdict. We interpret it as follows:

  • Below 18%. Normal. No action; the manuscript proceeds to peer review.
  • 18% to 30%. Reviewed by the Section Editor. Most matches at this level are legitimate (Methods sections that are necessarily similar across studies in a field, extensive direct quotation that is properly attributed, short overlap with the authors' own previous work that is appropriately cited). The Section Editor either clears the manuscript for peer review or returns it to the authors with specific concerns.
  • Above 30%. Generally desk-rejected. The Section Editor reviews the report; if the high score is driven by legitimate factors that the Section Editor can verify (e.g., the manuscript is a translation of the authors' own previously-published article in another language, with proper disclosure, and the previous version was clearly indicated at submission), the manuscript may be allowed to proceed. Otherwise, it is returned with the similarity report attached.

4. Self-plagiarism and text recycling

Authors sometimes reuse their own previously-published text — a Methods section from an earlier paper, a literature review section, framing material from a conference paper. We do not treat all such reuse as misconduct, but we require disclosure:

  • At submission, declare any substantial overlap with the authors' own previously-published work, with citations.
  • Where overlap is appropriate (Methods sections in a series of studies on the same intervention, an extended version of a conference paper), the original is cited and the relationship is described.
  • Where overlap is not appropriate (republishing substantial chunks of a paper as if new), the manuscript is rejected.

A reasonable rule of thumb: if a reader would be surprised to discover that a passage was written for an earlier paper, that passage needs disclosure or rewriting.

5. After publication

If plagiarism is alleged after publication, the Editor-in-Chief investigates following COPE flowcharts:

  1. We compare the published article with the alleged source(s) using iThenticate and any additional materials supplied by the complainant.
  2. We contact the corresponding author with the specific allegation and request a response within 30 days.
  3. We may consult the corresponding author's institution if the case is serious or if the response is unsatisfactory.
  4. We act on the result: a public correction for minor un-disclosed reuse with no scholarly consequences, an expression of concern where investigation is ongoing, or retraction with a public retraction notice for confirmed plagiarism that affects the article's substance.

Retracted articles remain accessible on the journal site (they are not deleted), but are clearly marked as retracted and the retraction notice has its own DOI.

6. Reviewer and editor obligations

Reviewers and editors are sometimes the first to notice plagiarism — a passage that recalls a known source, a methods description that matches another lab's previous publication, a figure that looks familiar. Reviewers are asked to flag any such concern in a confidential note to the editor.

Reviewers and editors must not themselves plagiarize from manuscripts they handle. Specifically, reviewers may not use ideas or text from a manuscript under review in their own work until that manuscript is published, and even then must cite it appropriately. Confirmed misconduct of this kind leads to removal from the journal's reviewer pool or editorial board.

7. Reporting

To report plagiarism in a published article, send the manuscript ID or DOI, the alleged source(s), and a brief description of the overlap to ethics@ep-journals.org. We acknowledge within 5 working days and provide an outcome notification when the investigation closes.

Effective: 1 May 2026 (v1.0).
Editorial contact: editor@jnsrr.ep-journals.org
Ethics contact: ethics@ep-journals.org