Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review (JALR) is committed to academic originality, accurate attribution, and responsible scholarly communication. This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to the journal, including original research and review articles. It complements the journal’s Publication Ethics, Author Guidelines, Authorship and Contribution Policy, and Peer Review Process.

01Definitions and Scope

Plagiarism includes presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, images, methods, or other scholarly contributions as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgment. It may involve verbatim copying, close paraphrasing without attribution, unattributed translation, or misuse of figures and data. Text recycling (self-plagiarism) may arise when authors reuse substantial portions of their previously disseminated work without adequate disclosure or citation. The acceptability of limited reuse depends on the content, purpose, prior publication, and applicable rights.

02Originality and Author Responsibilities

• Authors must submit original work and accurately cite or acknowledge all material derived from other sources.
• Any substantial overlap with a thesis, preprint, conference paper, report, or previously published work must be disclosed at submission, together with a relevant link or copy where appropriate.
• Authors must obtain permissions when required for reproduced copyrighted figures, tables, or other material.
• Rewriting copied text, using translation, or using generative AI to conceal unattributed material does not make it original.
• Simultaneous submission of substantially the same manuscript to another journal and redundant publication without appropriate disclosure are prohibited.

03Similarity Screening Procedure

The editorial team screens submitted manuscripts using an available similarity-detection service and performs a contextual assessment of the results. Screening is normally conducted during initial editorial assessment and may be repeated after major revision, before acceptance, or whenever a concern arises. Editors may also compare references, source documents, metadata, images, and related publications directly.

04Interpretation of Similarity Scores

JALR does not treat any numerical similarity percentage as automatic proof of plagiarism or as a guarantee of acceptability. A low score may still conceal serious unattributed copying; conversely, a higher score can arise from properly quoted material, references, disciplinary terminology, or previously disseminated work that is transparently acknowledged. Exclusions applied by similarity software, including bibliographies and quotations, may be considered by the editor according to the manuscript’s context.

The editor may request revisions whenever overlapping material is excessive, inadequately attributed, or inconsistent with the manuscript’s claimed contribution, even when the overall similarity score appears low. Manuscripts must demonstrate sufficient originality and added scholarly value irrespective of their software-generated similarity score.

05Quotations, Paraphrasing, and Reuse of Previous Work

• Direct quotations should be clearly identified and referenced in accordance with the journal’s citation style.
• Paraphrased material must reflect the authors’ own expression and must cite the original source; changing a few words is not sufficient.
• Previously published methods or background descriptions should be appropriately referenced; substantial text recycling may require revision or further explanation.
• Preprints, theses, and conference materials should be disclosed when relevant. Their existence does not necessarily disqualify a manuscript, but the editor will evaluate overlap, originality, and publisher or licensing conditions.
• Systematic and critical literature reviews must synthesize and evaluate sources independently and must not reproduce extended passages from the literature without justification and proper attribution.

06Editorial Decisions and Corrective Actions

Where a similarity concern is identified, the editor evaluates its extent and seriousness. Depending on the findings, the journal may request appropriate citations or rewriting, require a statement explaining related prior publications, conduct additional editorial review, or reject the manuscript. Serious concerns may be considered under the Publication Ethics procedure, with an opportunity for authors to respond and provide evidence where appropriate.

Authors must not manipulate manuscripts or similarity reports to defeat detection. Editorial acceptance depends on the quality, originality, methodological validity, and integrity of the work, not on passing a numerical screening threshold alone.

07Suspected Misconduct After Publication

Concerns received after publication are assessed on their merits. Editors may review source material, contact the authors, seek independent advice, and request institutional assistance when necessary. Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction in accordance with its Publication Ethics and the relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Published records should remain transparently identifiable and linked to any resulting notice.

08Confidentiality, Fairness, and Documentation

Similarity reports, unpublished manuscripts, reviewer comments, and related correspondence are treated as confidential editorial records. Access is limited to persons with a legitimate editorial role. Editors disclose and manage conflicts of interest, assess concerns impartially, document relevant findings and decisions in the journal’s editorial management system, and protect authors from unsupported allegations. The use of external screening services must be consistent with applicable privacy and confidentiality obligations.

09Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy operates alongside the Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, Authorship and Contribution Policy, and Author Guidelines. Where a concern involves authorship, fabricated sources, AI-generated misleading content, duplicate submissions, or other research misconduct, the journal applies the relevant additional policies and appropriate editorial procedures.