PLAGIARISM POLICY

NurseLine Journal (NLJ) is committed to maintaining academic integrity, originality, and appropriate acknowledgement of intellectual contributions. Plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, and undisclosed redundant publication are unacceptable. This policy applies to submitted manuscripts, revised manuscripts, supplementary materials, and published articles.

The journal’s assessment and handling of suspected violations are guided by the relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Definition and Scope of Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, findings, images, tables, or other intellectual contributions as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement.

Unacceptable practices include:

• Copying text without clearly identifying quotations and citing the original source.

• Paraphrasing too closely or combining passages from multiple sources without adequate attribution.

• Translating another person’s work and presenting it as original.

• Reproducing or adapting data, figures, tables, or other materials without appropriate attribution and, where required, permission.

• Using another person’s unpublished work or confidential materials without authorisation.

Citing a source does not, by itself, justify reproducing its wording without quotation marks or another appropriate indication of direct quotation. Translation, automated paraphrasing, or AI-assisted rewriting must not be used to conceal the origin of material.

2. Similarity Screening and Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin before external peer review. Revised manuscripts may be screened again when necessary, including before publication.

Similarity reports support editorial assessment; they do not independently establish whether plagiarism has occurred. Editors examine individual matches and their original sources, considering the amount, location, attribution, and significance of the overlapping material.

NLJ does not use a fixed similarity percentage as the sole basis for accepting or rejecting a manuscript. A low score does not establish originality, and a high score does not automatically establish misconduct.

References, properly identified quotations, standard terminology, and conventional methodological descriptions are assessed in context. Screening settings and exclusions must be applied consistently and must not conceal substantive overlap. Authors must address the underlying attribution or originality concerns rather than merely reduce a numerical score.

3. Text Recycling and Redundant Publication

Text recycling refers to the reuse of an author’s own previously disseminated wording. Its acceptability depends on the extent and location of reuse, appropriate acknowledgement, copyright conditions, and the manuscript’s original contribution. Limited overlap in methodological descriptions may be justifiable when necessary and transparently attributed.

Previously published findings or substantial portions of an earlier article must not be presented as new work. Authors must disclose potentially overlapping publications and related manuscripts, cite relevant previous work, and provide copies when requested.

The same or substantially overlapping manuscript must not be submitted simultaneously to another journal. Any proposed secondary publication requires prior editorial consideration, transparent attribution, and compliance with applicable permissions and ICMJE recommendations.

4. Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for the originality and accurate attribution of all submitted content, including material prepared with assistance from other people or AI tools.

Authors must ensure that quotations, paraphrases, references, and reused materials are correctly identified. Any permissions required for reproduction or adaptation must be obtained. Relevant overlap with earlier publications or publicly available versions must be disclosed at submission.

5. Handling Concerns Before Publication

When suspected plagiarism is identified, the editor will assess the evidence and request an explanation from the corresponding author. Other authors may be contacted when appropriate. Review or publication may be paused while the concern is examined.

Limited attribution deficiencies may require correction, proper quotation, citation, or substantive rewriting. Substantial plagiarism or undisclosed redundant publication may result in rejection. Serious or unresolved concerns may be referred to the relevant institution, publisher, or other responsible body.

Decisions consider the evidence, the nature and extent of the problem, and the authors’ response. Authors will be informed of the outcome and its reasons.

6. Handling Concerns After Publication

Concerns identified after publication will be investigated using the same principles of evidence-based assessment and fair opportunity to respond.

Depending on the findings, NLJ may publish a correction, an expression of concern while significant issues remain unresolved, or a retraction when warranted. Limited attribution problems may be corrected, whereas substantial plagiarism or redundant publication may justify retraction.

Retraction notices will explain the reasons and be linked to the original article. Retracted articles will normally remain accessible and clearly marked to preserve the publication record.

7. Reporting Concerns and Appeals

Suspected plagiarism may be reported confidentially to nurseline@journal.unej.ac.id. Reports should identify the manuscript or article and provide specific evidence, such as matching passages and their sources.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence to the same address. Appeals will be assessed by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest, with independent advice obtained when necessary.

The purpose of these procedures is to protect the integrity of the scholarly record through fair, proportionate, and transparent editorial action.