 |
PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY POLICY
Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan Masyarakat, abbreviated as SEHATMAS, publishes original research that readers, health professionals, policy makers, and communities can trust. This policy explains what the journal regards as plagiarism, how manuscripts are screened for originality, how other research integrity concerns are treated, and what actions the editors may take before and after publication.
The policy applies to every manuscript submitted to SEHATMAS and to every article that the journal has published. It is based on the Publication Ethics statement of the journal, which follows the Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Important. A similarity score is only a screening signal. It is never proof of plagiarism, and it is never the only basis for a decision. Trained editors read the matched text and the sources before any conclusion is reached.
Policy at a Glance
| Topic | Position of SEHATMAS |
|---|---|
| Originality | A manuscript must be original, must not have been published before in any language, and must not be under review by another journal. |
| Screening | Every submission is screened for text similarity and other integrity concerns before it is sent to reviewers. |
| Similarity result | A result of about 15 percent or higher may lead to a closer editorial examination. It is not an automatic rejection threshold. |
| Decisions | Editors decide after they have assessed the matched passages, the sources, and the explanation of the authors. Software never decides alone. |
| Serious misconduct | Plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, and manipulation lead to rejection of a manuscript or to correction, expression of concern, or retraction of a published article. |
| Reporting | Concerns can be sent to jurnal.sehatmas@gmail.com. |
1. Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this policy is to protect the scientific record in public health and the health sciences, to give credit to the people who did the work, and to treat authors, reviewers, and readers fairly. Public health research can influence clinical practice, health programs, and public policy. Therefore, unreliable or copied work can cause real harm.
Authors should check their manuscript with a similarity checking tool before they submit it, and they should be able to show the sources of all text, ideas, data, figures, and instruments in the manuscript. Authors are also encouraged to submit a Letter of Originality, which is available from the Author Information menu of the journal.
2. What Is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is the use of the words, ideas, data, or other work of another person as if it were your own, without proper credit or permission. It can be intentional or careless, and both are taken seriously. The table below lists the main forms that editors look for.
| No. | Form | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Direct copying | Copying words or sentences from another source without quotation marks and without a citation. |
| 2 | Close paraphrasing | Changing a few words or the order of a sentence while the structure and the wording of the original remain clearly visible. |
| 3 | Paraphrasing without credit | Expressing the content of a source in new words without citing the source. |
| 4 | Patchwork plagiarism | Joining passages from several sources into one text, with small changes, and presenting the result as original writing. |
| 5 | Uncredited ideas | Presenting the ideas, arguments, hypotheses, or conceptual frameworks of others without acknowledgement. |
| 6 | Improper use of data and materials | Using tables, figures, datasets, questionnaires, scales, or other protected material without citation, and where required, without permission. |
| 7 | Misrepresented quotations or citations | Citing a source that does not support the statement, changing the meaning of a quotation, or citing a source that the author has not read. |
| 8 | Translation plagiarism | Translating the work of others into Indonesian or English, or the reverse, and presenting it as new work. |
| 9 | Unauthorized authorship | Submitting work that was written by another person, including ghost authorship and the use of paid writing services, without disclosure and without proper authorship credit. |
| 10 | Inappropriate text recycling | Reusing substantial parts of your own earlier work without disclosure and citation (see section 3). |
| 11 | Undisclosed generative AI output | Submitting text, images, or references that were produced by generative AI tools without the disclosure that the Generative AI Policies require. |
3. Your Own Work, Thesis Based Articles, and Duplicate Submission
| Situation | What the journal expects |
|---|---|
| Reuse of your own published work | Cite and disclose your earlier publications. A substantial overlap of text, data, or tables may be treated as text recycling or redundant publication. A limited overlap, for example the standard description of a well known method, may be acceptable when it is cited. |
| Articles based on a thesis or a dissertation | State in a note, for example in the Acknowledgements, that the article is based on a thesis or a dissertation. Rewrite the work as a journal article. Do not copy chapters of the thesis into the manuscript. |
| Previously published work | The manuscript must not have been published before in any language. Publishing the same findings again in another language is redundant publication. |
| Simultaneous submission | Do not submit the same manuscript, or a manuscript with substantially the same content, to more than one journal at the same time. |
4. Similarity Screening
All submissions are checked for text similarity and other integrity concerns with similarity checking software before they are sent to reviewers. The software compares the manuscript with a large database of published and online sources. The editors then examine the report in context.
4.1 How the Similarity Result Is Used
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Screening signal | The similarity score shows how much of the text matches other sources. It does not show whether the matches are acceptable. |
| Closer examination | A result of about 15 percent or higher may lead to additional examination by the editors. |
| No automatic rejection | A high score does not lead to automatic rejection, and a low score does not guarantee that the manuscript is free of plagiarism. |
| Editorial review | The editors review the source, the amount, the location, and the context of each match. |
4.2 Matches the Editors Usually Accept and Matches That Raise Concern
| Usually acceptable | Raises concern |
|---|---|
| Reference lists and bibliographic details | Whole sentences or paragraphs that match a source without quotation marks |
| Correctly quoted and cited text | Matches in the Introduction, Method, or Discussion that follow one source closely |
| Common technical terms, standard phrases, and names of institutions | Matches with the earlier work of the same authors that is not cited |
| Standard descriptions of widely used methods, with citation | Matches with a thesis, a report, or a preprint that is not disclosed |
5. Other Research Integrity Concerns
Research integrity covers more than plagiarism. The journal expects honesty in the collection, the analysis, and the reporting of data. The following concerns are treated as serious.
| Concern | Examples in health research |
|---|---|
| Data fabrication | Inventing data, respondents, interviews, or clinical or community records that do not exist. |
| Data falsification | Changing, omitting, or selecting data, results, or analyses so that the findings do not reflect the research record. |
| Image manipulation | Altering photographs, laboratory images, charts, or figures in a way that misleads readers. |
| Fabricated references or DOIs | Citing sources or DOIs that do not exist, or that were generated without verification. |
| Citation manipulation | Adding citations mainly to increase the citation count of a person or a journal, or asking others to do so. |
| Undisclosed redundant publication | Publishing the same work, or nearly the same work, more than once without disclosure. |
| Inappropriate authorship | Gift authorship, ghost authorship, or the omission of a person who qualifies as an author. See Authorship and Contributorship. |
| Peer review manipulation | Fake reviewer identities, a review that was arranged by the authors, or a breach of the confidentiality of review. |
| Misrepresentation of the study | Misrepresenting the methods, the ethical clearance, the informed consent, the participants, the findings, or the sources. |
Ethics and participants. Research with human participants needs ethical clearance from a competent ethics committee and informed consent. Editors may ask authors to attach the ethical clearance document. Reporting research without the required clearance or consent is a breach of publication ethics.
6. Screening and Handling Procedure
| Step | Stage | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Screening | The editorial office checks the manuscript with similarity and integrity tools, together with the initial check of scope, format, and ethics. |
| 2 | Human assessment | An editor reads the matched passages and sources, and examines other signs of concern such as inconsistent data, unusual references, or doubtful images. |
| 3 | Clarification | The authors may be asked to explain the matches or concerns, and to correct, cite, or rewrite the text, or to provide documents and permissions. |
| 4 | Decision | The editor takes a decision that is proportionate to the seriousness of the concern, and records it. |
The same procedure applies when a concern is raised after the manuscript has entered peer review. The Peer Review Process page explains how screening fits into the review.
7. Actions the Journal May Take
| Stage | Possible actions |
|---|---|
| Before publication | A request for clarification; a request for corrected citations or attribution; a request to rewrite overlapping text; a request for supporting documents, data, or permissions; a pause in the evaluation; and rejection of the manuscript when plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, or other serious misconduct is established. |
| After publication | A correction or corrigendum; an expression of concern while an investigation is unresolved; retraction when the record is substantially unreliable or serious misconduct is proven; notification of the institution, the funder, or another competent body; and other proportionate steps. |
Actions on published articles follow the Correction and Retraction policy. Allegations are handled as described in Allegations of Misconduct.
8. Responsibilities
| Role | Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Authors | Submit original work, cite all sources, disclose related publications, theses, and the use of generative AI, keep the research data, respond honestly and on time to questions, and notify the editor before they withdraw a manuscript. |
| Reviewers | Do not review manuscripts in which they are personally involved, keep manuscripts and review comments confidential, and tell the editor if they recognize text or data that was published elsewhere. |
| Editors | Screen manuscripts, judge concerns fairly and without a conflict of interest, protect the academic record, and issue corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when they are needed. |
| Journal and publisher | Provide the tools and the procedures for screening, keep confidential records of cases, and support education on publication ethics. |
9. Human Oversight, Fairness, and Confidentiality
| Principle | How it is applied |
|---|---|
| Human oversight | Automated tools support the editors, but they do not decide whether misconduct occurred. Qualified editors make the final decision. |
| Fairness | The people who are concerned can normally respond before a decision is taken. Decisions are based on evidence. |
| Confidentiality | Information about a case is shared only with those who need it to handle the case. Reports made in good faith are protected, and retaliation is not accepted. |
| Records | The journal keeps a confidential record of its decisions in integrity cases. |
10. Reporting a Concern
Anyone who has a concern about plagiarism or research integrity in a submitted manuscript or a published article may write to the editorial office at jurnal.sehatmas@gmail.com. Please use the subject line Integrity Concern: [Article or Submission Identifier], and include the following.
| Item | Information to provide |
|---|---|
| Identification | The title of the manuscript or article, or its identifier, such as the DOI. |
| Concern | A clear and specific description of the concern. |
| Evidence | Supporting evidence, such as documents, data, or links to the sources. |
| Reporter | Any conflict of interest of the reporter and any need for confidentiality. |
A report starts an assessment. It does not prove that misconduct occurred. A report that is knowingly false or malicious is itself a breach of publication ethics.
Related Policies and Pages
| Topic | Page |
|---|---|
| Ethical principles of the journal | Publication Ethics |
| Reports and investigations | Allegations of Misconduct |
| Corrections and retractions | Correction and Retraction |
| Generative AI | Generative AI Policies |
| Competing interests | Conflicts of Interest |
| Authorship | Authorship and Contributorship |
| Preparing and submitting a manuscript | Author Guidelines, Manuscript Preparation, and Peer Review Process |
For questions about this policy, please contact the editorial office at jurnal.sehatmas@gmail.com.
