Introduction

Virtus International Journal of Research (VIJR) requires original scholarly submissions that acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others accurately and transparently. This policy addresses plagiarism, inappropriate reuse of previously disseminated material, duplicate submission, and redundant publication across the journal’s multidisciplinary scope, including Engineering, Technology, and Applied Sciences.

The policy applies to manuscript text, ideas, methods, data, software code, figures, tables, images, and other research outputs included in submitted or published work.

1. Originality and Author Responsibilities

Submitted manuscripts must represent the authors’ own scholarly work, must not be under consideration by another journal, and must not have been published previously.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that:

• Sources are acknowledged wherever another person’s ideas, words, methods, data, or other contributions are used.
• Verbatim passages are clearly identified as quotations and accompanied by appropriate citations.
• Paraphrased material is expressed independently and attributed to its original source.
• Reused or adapted figures, tables, images, code, and other materials include appropriate attribution and any permission required by the applicable rights or licence.
• Relevant earlier work by the authors is cited, and substantive overlap is disclosed.
• Related manuscripts and any previous public dissemination of the submitted work are disclosed to the editor.
• All listed authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript and agreed to its submission.

Citation alone does not authorize reproduction where permission is required. Similarly, permission to reproduce material does not remove the obligation to acknowledge its source.

Authors must disclose any related preprint, conference contribution, thesis, dissertation, repository deposit, or other publicly available version. Disclosure does not automatically establish eligibility for publication; authors should obtain editorial clarification where prior dissemination may affect originality.

2. Unacceptable Practices

The following practices are incompatible with the originality requirements of VIJR:

• Direct plagiarism: Presenting another person’s words or material as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement.
• Unattributed paraphrasing: Restating another person’s work without identifying the source.
• Mosaic plagiarism: Combining copied or lightly modified passages from one or more sources without adequate attribution.
• Misappropriation of intellectual contributions: Using another person’s ideas, data, code, illustrations, or findings without appropriate acknowledgement or authorization.
• Undisclosed text recycling: Reusing substantial portions of the authors’ previously published material without transparent disclosure and citation.
• Duplicate or redundant publication: Presenting previously published work, or substantially overlapping findings, as a new and independent publication without adequate disclosure and justification.
• Simultaneous submission: Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
• Concealment of sources: Altering wording, translating material, or manipulating presentation to disguise its origin or evade similarity screening.
• Unauthorized reproduction: Reusing protected material without permission where permission is required.

Fabrication, falsification, and misleading manipulation of research content are also unacceptable. Although distinct from plagiarism, these concerns may arise during an originality assessment and require separate examination.

3. Similarity Screening

All manuscripts are screened using similarity-detection software. A similarity index above 15%, excluding references, leads to return to the authors or rejection.

A similarity index measures detected overlap; it does not, by itself, establish whether plagiarism has occurred. Editorial assessment must consider the sources, context, distribution, and significance of the matched material.

Assessment should distinguish potentially improper copying from overlap involving:

• Standard technical terminology and conventional expressions.
• Appropriately attributed quotations.
• Common descriptions of established methods.
• Transparently acknowledged reuse permitted by the applicable rights or licence.

These considerations inform the assessment of the overlap but do not remove the stated requirement to return or reject manuscripts exceeding the screening threshold.

A similarity index of 15% or below does not establish originality or guarantee acceptance. Unattributed use of an important idea, dataset, figure, or passage may constitute a serious concern even when the overall similarity score is low.

Authors must address the underlying attribution or originality problem rather than merely alter wording to reduce a similarity score.

4. Reporting and Assessing Concerns

Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers may raise concerns about suspected plagiarism or redundant publication through the journal’s official communication channel listed on the VIJR website.

A report should identify:

• The submitted manuscript or published article concerned.
• The original source or related publication.
• The passages, data, images, or other material alleged to overlap.
• Supporting evidence that enables a meaningful comparison.

An allegation or software match is a reason for assessment, not proof of misconduct. The assessment should consider the nature and extent of the overlap, the adequacy of attribution, any disclosure of related work, and the implications for originality and the scholarly record.

Authors should have an opportunity to explain relevant circumstances and provide supporting documentation. Explanations must be assessed against the available evidence; a claim that copying was unintentional does not remove the need to correct an attribution or originality problem.

Anyone involved in assessing a concern should disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw where impartiality could be compromised.

5. Action Before Publication

Where originality concerns arise before publication, further consideration of the manuscript may be paused while the concern is assessed.

Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the issue, editorial action may include:

• Requesting clarification, source material, or an explanation from the authors.
• Returning the manuscript for appropriate correction where the problem is limited and remediable.
• Seeking additional subject or research integrity advice.
• Rejecting the manuscript where plagiarism, redundant submission, or another substantial integrity breach is established.

Revision must not be used to conceal substantial misappropriation or to present previously published research as original. Reducing a similarity score does not automatically resolve a substantive concern.

6. Action After Publication

Concerns affecting a published article require assessment of the evidence and the appropriate means of protecting the scholarly record.

Possible responses include:

• Correction or clarification: Where a limited attribution or presentation problem can be corrected without undermining the article’s overall contribution.
• Expression of concern: Where a serious concern remains unresolved and readers need to be alerted while further examination continues.
• Retraction: Where established plagiarism or redundant publication warrants withdrawal of the article’s standing as an original scholarly contribution, or where serious misconduct compromises the reliability of the work.

Duplicate submission discovered after publication must be assessed to determine whether it resulted in duplicate publication or another material breach. The appropriate response depends on the established facts rather than the allegation alone.

The purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and protect its integrity. A retraction notice should identify the affected article, explain the reason for retraction, and be linked to the article. The article should ordinarily remain accessible with its retracted status clearly indicated. These principles are described in the COPE Retraction Guidelines. COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics

7. Confidentiality and Necessary Disclosure

Unpublished manuscripts, similarity reports, correspondence, and evidence concerning allegations should be handled confidentially and shared only as necessary for a fair assessment.

Where justified by the evidence and the needs of an investigation, relevant information may need to be shared with affected authors, other journals, institutions, or research funders. Any disclosure should be proportionate and distinguish suspected concerns from established findings.

Confidentiality does not prevent the publication of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice needed to explain the status of the scholarly record.

8. Continuing Author Responsibility

Authors remain responsible for the originality and accuracy of their work after publication. They should promptly inform the journal if they discover significant unattributed overlap, undisclosed duplicate publication, or another material integrity problem.

Authors are expected to cooperate with requests for explanations and documentation and to assist in correcting the published record when necessary.