Plagiarism Screening Policy
AKSEN Journal of Contemporary Islamic Law (AJCIL)
This policy sets out how AJCIL defines, screens for, and responds to plagiarism at every stage of the editorial process. It works alongside the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (Section 7) and Retraction and Correction Policy.
1. Definition of Plagiarism
For the purposes of this policy, plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
- Verbatim plagiarism — copying another author's text word-for-word without quotation marks and proper attribution.
- Mosaic/patchwork plagiarism — combining phrases or sentences from one or more sources with minor word substitutions, without adequate paraphrasing or attribution.
- Paraphrasing plagiarism — closely restating another author's ideas or argument structure without proper citation, even if no exact wording is copied.
- Self-plagiarism (text recycling) — reusing substantial portions of the author's own previously published work (including the author's own thesis, conference paper, or prior journal article) without disclosure and appropriate citation.
- Uncredited translation — translating a passage from a source in another language (e.g., translating an Arabic, Indonesian, or English source) without attribution, presented as original analysis.
- Idea plagiarism — presenting another scholar's original argument, legal interpretation, or analytical framework as one's own without acknowledgment, even where the specific wording differs substantially.
- Citation/reference plagiarism (sometimes called "citation without consultation") — citing a source the author has not actually read or consulted, especially where this misrepresents the depth of engagement with the literature.
2. What Is Not Considered Plagiarism
- Proper direct quotation with quotation marks (or block-quote formatting) and a complete citation.
- Adequately paraphrased ideas with correct attribution to the original source.
- Common, unavoidable phrasing for legal or technical terms of art (e.g., standard formulations of legal principles, Qur'anic verse citations, standard Arabic legal terminology) that cannot reasonably be rephrased.
- Properly cited and appropriately limited self-citation to the author's own earlier work, used to build on or extend prior research (as opposed to duplicating it without added value).
3. When Screening Occurs
| Stage | Screening Action |
|---|---|
| Initial submission | Full-text similarity screening of the manuscript before it proceeds to desk review (see Author Guidelines, Section 8) |
| Post-revision | Re-screening of substantially revised manuscripts, particularly where new text has been added |
| Pre-publication | A final similarity check may be run on the copyedited/typeset version before online publication |
| Post-publication (if concerns raised) | Screening or manual investigation triggered by a reader, reviewer, or editor complaint (see Publication Ethics Statement, Section 7) |
4. Screening Method
[Placeholder: AJCIL's editorial board should specify and confirm the actual similarity-detection tool used (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate, Grammarly's plagiarism checker, or a comparable service), including any licensing/subscription arrangement, before this section is finalized. This draft does not assume or assert that a specific tool has already been procured.]
Similarity screening should account for the journal's bilingual (English/Indonesian) submissions and, where feasible, content that quotes or translates Arabic-language primary sources, since standard similarity-detection tools may have uneven coverage of Indonesian-language and non-Latin-script source databases. Editorial staff should manually review flagged sections rather than relying solely on an automated similarity percentage.
5. Interpreting Similarity Reports
A similarity report's overall percentage score is a starting point for human review, not an automatic verdict. Editorial staff should examine the composition of flagged matches, since:
- A high percentage driven mainly by properly quoted material, standard legal phrases, the bibliography/reference list, or the author's own previously cited work is generally not concerning.
- A lower percentage concentrated in a single continuous, unquoted, uncredited passage lifted from one source can be more serious than a higher but diffuse percentage across many small, properly attributed matches.
[Placeholder: many journals set an indicative similarity threshold (commonly cited informally in the range of roughly 15–25% for humanities/social science manuscripts, excluding quotations and the reference list) as a trigger for closer manual review — not an automatic rejection. AJCIL's editorial board should decide on and state its own specific threshold(s) once it has selected a screening tool and has some operating experience, rather than adopting a number from another journal without verification. Any published threshold should be described as a review trigger, not a strict pass/fail cutoff, since context always matters.]
6. Process for Handling Flagged Manuscripts
- The Managing Editor reviews the similarity report and determines whether the flagged content warrants further scrutiny.
- If concerning matches are identified, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor examines the specific passages in context.
- If plagiarism appears likely:
- At submission/pre-review stage: the manuscript is returned to the author with an explanation, or desk-rejected, depending on severity. The author may be given an opportunity to respond before a final decision, at the editor's discretion.
- Post-acceptance or post-publication: the matter is handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (Section 7) and, if substantiated, the Retraction and Correction Policy.
- Cases involving self-plagiarism/text recycling are assessed for degree and intent — for example, whether prior published material was substantially reused without disclosure and without adding new analysis, data, or contribution.
- In serious or repeated cases, the author's institution may be notified, consistent with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
7. Author Responsibilities
Authors are responsible for:
- Ensuring all sources are properly quoted or paraphrased with complete Chicago 17th (Notes-Bibliography) citations (see Author Guidelines, Section 7).
- Disclosing any substantial overlap between the submitted manuscript and the author's own previously published work (e.g., a thesis chapter, conference paper, or working paper), including a statement explaining what is new in the current submission.
- Not submitting a manuscript that is simultaneously under review at another journal (see Author Guidelines, Section 8).
8. Reviewer and Editor Role
Reviewers and editors are encouraged to flag any passage that reads as strikingly familiar, inconsistently styled relative to the rest of the manuscript, or inconsistent with the author's evident command of the material, even if a similarity-detection tool does not flag it — automated tools do not reliably catch idea plagiarism, uncredited translation, or paraphrased plagiarism.
