Copyright Notice

e-Saintika | Section 01

1. Originality and Attribution

Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, published by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LITPAM), requires all submitted manuscripts to present original scholarly work and to acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others accurately and transparently.

Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, data, results, images, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment, permission where required, or clear identification of the original source. It may involve direct copying, insufficient paraphrasing, or unattributed reuse of substantial scholarly material.

Authors must cite relevant sources, distinguish their own contributions from those of others, and disclose closely related manuscripts, preprints, conference outputs, and other prior dissemination when submitting their work. Reuse of an author's own previously disseminated material requires appropriate disclosure and may raise concerns about redundant publication even where third-party plagiarism is not involved.

e-Saintika | Section 02

2. Unacceptable Practices

The following practices may constitute plagiarism, inappropriate reuse, or related publication-integrity concerns:

1. Unattributed copying: reproducing passages, ideas, interpretations, or other content from another source without adequate acknowledgment.
2. Inadequate paraphrasing: making only superficial wording changes while reproducing another author's expression or argument without proper attribution.
3. Misappropriation of data or visual material: using data sets, tables, figures, photographs, or illustrations without appropriate attribution or authorization where necessary.
4. Misleading reuse of prior work: presenting previously published or substantially overlapping material as new without appropriate citation, disclosure, or editorial justification.
5. Duplicate or simultaneous publication: submitting substantially the same article to multiple journals at the same time, or republishing substantially the same work without appropriate disclosure and permission.
6. Misleading attribution: citing sources in a manner that conceals the origin of copied material or incorrectly represents the development of the scholarly argument.

Similarity-detection software cannot identify every form of misconduct. Editors may also examine sources, figures, data, citations, and related publications where concerns arise.

e-Saintika | Section 03

3. Similarity Screening

The Editorial Board screens submitted manuscripts for textual overlap using Turnitin® as part of the initial editorial assessment. Additional checks may be undertaken after revisions or when new concerns arise during peer review or production.

The similarity report identifies text matching sources available to the screening system. It does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred. The responsible editor examines the location, extent, concentration, and context of matches, including whether passages are appropriately quoted or cited and whether any overlap affects the manuscript's claimed originality.

Bibliographies, quotations, standard technical expressions, and other legitimate overlaps may influence the score. Any report exclusions used for evaluation should be applied consistently and transparently. Authors must not manipulate text or the screening process merely to obtain a lower percentage.

e-Saintika | Section 04

4. Interpretation of the 20% Benchmark

e-Saintika uses an overall similarity score of 20% or less as its routine editorial screening benchmark. This benchmark helps identify manuscripts that may require closer examination; it is not a standalone test of plagiarism or a guarantee of acceptance.

1. Similarity at or below 20%: the manuscript may proceed to further editorial assessment when the matched content is appropriately attributed and no other originality concerns are identified. Materially inappropriate copying may still warrant action even with a low overall score.
2. Similarity above 20%: the editor examines the report and the underlying sources. Depending on the nature and extent of the matches, the manuscript may be returned for clarification or revision, subjected to additional integrity checks, or rejected when serious problems are established.
3. Serious plagiarism regardless of score: substantial unattributed appropriation, misleading scholarly attribution, or other clear integrity breaches may justify rejection or further action regardless of the numerical similarity result.

Editorial decisions are based on the evidence and context of the overlap, not on the numerical score alone. Meeting the 20% benchmark does not exempt a manuscript from originality checks, peer review, or the journal's publication ethics requirements.

e-Saintika | Section 05

5. Concerns Before Publication

When potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap is identified before publication, the handling editor assesses the relevant material and supporting evidence. Where clarification is needed, the corresponding author may be asked to explain the overlap, provide source information, or revise the affected passages.

1. Initial examination: the editor compares the flagged passages with the original sources and considers the nature and significance of the overlap.
2. Author response: where appropriate, the editor communicates the concern and allows a reasonable opportunity for explanation or supporting documentation.
3. Editorial assessment: the response and the evidence are reviewed, distinguishing legitimate quotation, routine technical language, honest error, inadequate attribution, and serious misconduct.
4. Appropriate outcome: the editor may allow the evaluation to continue, request corrections or a revised submission, reject the manuscript, or pursue further inquiries where serious concerns remain.

Submissions found to contain substantial and unjustified plagiarism may be rejected before or during peer review. Serious or unresolved cases may be referred to the relevant institution or authority when warranted and consistent with appropriate editorial procedures. Records of significant concerns and decisions are retained confidentially as appropriate.

e-Saintika | Section 06

6. Concerns After Publication

Concerns about possible plagiarism in a published article are assessed even after the editorial and peer-review process has been completed. The editor reviews the relevant sources and evidence, contacts the authors as appropriate, and considers whether the integrity of the published record is affected.

Depending on the findings, the journal may publish a correction, issue an expression of concern when significant questions remain unresolved, or retract an article when the evidence warrants that action. Decisions and notices should follow applicable Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance and the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The purpose of post-publication action is to maintain an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. The nature and seriousness of the problem, rather than the similarity percentage alone, determine the appropriate response.

e-Saintika | Section 07

7. Author Responsibilities and Fair Process

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations and quotations, originality of the submitted manuscript, and disclosure of relevant prior dissemination. Before submission, authors should check that borrowed wording is appropriately quoted or rewritten, ideas and data from others are cited, and all related work is transparently identified.

When contacted about a similarity or plagiarism concern, authors should provide a timely, complete, and evidence-based response. Where the concern arises from a mistake that can be corrected, the editor may request revision. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance; every manuscript remains subject to the journal's normal editorial standards.

Editors should handle allegations impartially and confidentially, consider the available evidence, and provide reasonable opportunities for explanation when appropriate. The journal does not treat every similarity match as misconduct or presume an author's intent from the software report.

e-Saintika | Section 08

8. Related Policies and Guidance

This policy should be read alongside the journal's broader requirements for manuscript preparation and ethical publishing:

• Author Guidelines for manuscript preparation, originality, citations, and author declarations.
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for author, editor, and reviewer responsibilities and responses to misconduct.
• Peer Review Process for editorial screening, external evaluation, and publication decisions.

For additional background on interpreting similarity reports and handling ethical concerns, authors and editors may consult Turnitin's guidance on similarity scores and the COPE guidance on suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript.

The journal's editorial assessment remains independent of any similarity-checking service or software recommendation.