PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY POLICY

Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Bidang Sains dan Teknologi, abbreviated as ABDIKAN, is published by Yayasan Literasi Sains Indonesia. The journal publishes only original work that is reported honestly. For this reason, manuscripts are screened for originality and research integrity before and during editorial evaluation.

Suspected plagiarism or research misconduct can lead to editorial action under the Publication Ethics of the journal. Authors are encouraged to check their own manuscript with a similarity tool before they submit it.

Step 1Screen

Step 2Assess

Step 3Clarify

Step 4Decide

1Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presentation of the words, ideas, data, arguments, images, results, or creative work of another person as one's own, without proper credit or permission. It can be deliberate, and it can also result from careless attribution. Both are taken seriously, although the editors consider the intention and the circumstances when they decide what to do.

2Forms of Plagiarism

The examples below are not an exhaustive list.

Form	Description
Direct copying	Copying text without quotation marks and without a citation.
Paraphrasing without credit	Restating the text or the ideas of another person in different words without naming the source.
Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism	Combining lightly altered passages from one or more sources into a new text.
Unattributed ideas	Using the idea, the argument, or the interpretation of another person without credit.
Improper use of data	Using the data or the analytical results of another person without permission or credit.
Improper use of protected material	Using figures, tables, photographs, questionnaires, tests, training modules, or teaching material that belong to others without permission and credit.
Misrepresenting quotations	Changing the meaning of a quotation, or attributing words to a person who did not write them.
Inaccurate or misleading citations	Citations that are incorrect, that name the wrong source, or that suggest support that the source does not give.
Translation plagiarism	Translating the work of another person from one language to another, for example from English into Indonesian, without credit.
Unauthorized authorship	Submitting work that was written by someone else, including work from a paid writing service, under one's own name.
Inappropriate recycling of one's own text	Reusing substantial parts of one's own published work without disclosure and citation. See section 3.

The use of generative AI to write or to rewrite text must follow the Generative AI Policies of the journal.

3Text Recycling, Activity Reports, and Articles Based on a Thesis

Many articles in a community service journal are based on an earlier report of the same activity, such as a final report to a funder, a report to the institution, or a thesis. Earlier work of this kind must be disclosed and cited.

Generally acceptable	Not acceptable
An article that is rewritten and adapted for the readers of the journal from a report or a thesis, with the origin stated, for example in the Acknowledgements.	A report or a thesis that is copied into the template with only the headings changed.
Limited overlap, such as a standard description of a method or of a procedure, that is cited.	Substantial overlap with an article that the authors have already published, without disclosure.
Reporting a new stage or a new result of a continuing program, with a clear reference to the earlier article.	Submitting the same manuscript to ABDIKAN and to another journal at the same time, or splitting the results of one activity into several articles without a sound reason.

The editors weigh the amount, the location, the context, the attribution, the necessity, and the significance of an overlap before they decide whether it is acceptable.

4Similarity Screening

The editors screen manuscripts for similarity with Turnitin. A similarity score is a screening signal and not proof of plagiarism. The journal expects a low overall similarity, and a high result leads to an examination by an editor and not to automatic rejection. A low score does not rule out plagiarism either, because a tool cannot detect every case, such as translation plagiarism or the use of ideas without credit.

The editors examine	Why it matters
The source of each match	A match with the earlier work of the same authors is judged differently from a match with the work of other people.
The amount and the location	Many small matches that are spread across the text differ from one long matching passage, and a match in the Results and Discussion is more serious than one in the description of a standard method.
The attribution and the context	Properly cited and properly quoted text is not plagiarism.
The nature of the match	The reference list, correctly quoted text, common terminology, standard method statements, names of institutions, and legitimate references to earlier publications are generally acceptable.

Advice to authors. Please run a similarity check before you submit your manuscript, correct passages that are too close to their source, and make sure that every source is cited. This is also a point on the checklist in the Author Guidelines.

5Research Integrity and Other Misconduct

Research misconduct is treated as a serious matter even when there is no plagiarism. In a journal of community service, the following are of particular concern.

No.	Misconduct	Examples
1	Fabrication or falsification of data	Inventing or changing data, including the results of tests and questionnaires or the records of attendance of participants, partners, and community members.
2	Manipulation of figures and images	Altering, duplicating, or reusing photographs, graphs, or documentation of the activity in a misleading way, or presenting an image of another activity as one's own.
3	Fabricated references	Inventing or falsifying references or DOIs.
4	Citation manipulation	Adding citations only to raise the number of citations of a person or a journal.
5	Undisclosed duplicate or redundant publication	Publishing the same activity in more than one article without disclosure.
6	Inappropriate authorship practices	Gift, guest, or ghost authorship, and trading of authorship. See Authorship and Contributorship.
7	Manipulation of peer review	Creating false reviewer identities, reviewing one's own manuscript, or arranging favorable reviews.
8	Misrepresentation	Deliberately misstating the method, the permission and informed consent, the participants, the role of the partner, the outputs, the findings, or the sources.

6Editorial Procedure

No.	Step	What happens
1	Screening	The manuscript is screened with a similarity tool, and it is checked for signs of other integrity problems.
2	Assessment	An editor reads the matching passages and compares them with their sources.
3	Clarification	The authors can explain, correct the citations, rewrite the passages, and provide documents or permissions.
4	Decision	The editors take a decision that is proportionate to the seriousness of the concern.

7Possible Actions

Before publication	After publication
Requesting clarification, corrected citations, or the rewriting of overlapping material.	Publishing a correction.
Requesting the underlying data, documents, or permissions.	Publishing an expression of concern while an investigation is not yet finished.
Pausing the evaluation of the manuscript while a concern is examined.	Retracting the article when the record is substantially unreliable or when serious misconduct is proven.
Rejecting the manuscript when serious misconduct is established.	Informing the institution of the authors or other relevant bodies, or taking other proportionate steps.

Action on a published article follows the Correction and Retraction policy, and a formal investigation follows the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

8Human Oversight and Fair Treatment

Automated tools support the editors but they do not decide whether misconduct has occurred. Qualified editors make the final judgment after they have considered the evidence and the context, and not a percentage alone.

Authors are told about the concern and are given a fair opportunity to respond before a decision is taken. The response of the journal is always proportionate to the seriousness of the matter.