Plagiarism

Academic Integrity • Originality • Screening

Plagiarism Policy

Innovation Midwifery and Child Health Practice (IMCHP)

Standards for originality, attribution, text reuse, similarity screening, and responsible AI-assisted writing.
IMCHP Journal Cover
Originality Requirement

Policy Statement

Innovation Midwifery and Child Health Practice (IMCHP) requires all submitted manuscripts to represent original scholarly work and to acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others accurately. Plagiarism, unattributed copying, misleading text reuse, duplicate publication, fabricated citations, citation manipulation, and other forms of deceptive scholarly attribution are inconsistent with the journal's publication-ethics standards.

IMCHP uses similarity-screening tools as part of editorial quality control. Screening results support, but do not replace, editorial judgment. A numerical similarity percentage or automated AI-detection result alone is not treated as conclusive evidence of plagiarism or misconduct.

Mandatory Similarity Report

Authors must upload a complete Turnitin Similarity Report in PDF format corresponding to the same manuscript version submitted to IMCHP. The editorial office may conduct additional screening at any stage of the publication process.

Similarity findings are evaluated by considering the source, amount, distribution, attribution, location, and scholarly context of matched material. Properly quoted text, references, methodological phrases, institutional terminology, or unavoidable technical language may generate legitimate similarity and therefore require contextual interpretation.

Forms of Unacceptable Practice

Definitions

1. Verbatim Plagiarism

Copying words, sentences, paragraphs, tables, figures, data, code, or other material from another source without appropriate quotation, attribution, permission, or citation where required.

 2. Plagiarism of Ideas

Presenting another person's original concept, hypothesis, interpretation, method, framework, or intellectual contribution as one's own without proper acknowledgment.
3. Inadequate Paraphrasing

Changing only a few words or sentence structures while retaining substantial expression or intellectual content from a source without adequate citation or acknowledgment.

 4. Text Recycling / Undisclosed Reuse

Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously disseminated text without transparent citation, acknowledgment, or disclosure when such reuse could mislead readers about the originality of the current manuscript.
5. Duplicate / Redundant Publication

Submitting or publishing substantially the same dataset, analysis, findings, or manuscript in more than one venue without transparent disclosure, appropriate justification, and editorial permission where applicable.

 6. Citation and Reference Misconduct

Fabricating references, citing sources that do not support the claim, deliberately misrepresenting a source, or manipulating citations to inflate author, reviewer, journal, or institutional metrics.
Similarity Is Not Automatically Plagiarism

Similarity software identifies textual matches; it does not independently determine author intent, attribution quality, legal reuse, or research misconduct. Editorial assessment distinguishes legitimate overlap from inappropriate appropriation. A manuscript may have a relatively low similarity score yet still contain serious plagiarism, while a higher score may result from correctly attributed references, standardized terminology, methods, or other legitimate overlap.

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Writing

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies is not automatically equivalent to plagiarism. However, such tools must not be used to conceal copying, fabricate evidence or references, misrepresent authorship, breach confidentiality, or produce misleading scholarly content.

  • AI systems cannot be listed as authors.
  • Authors remain fully responsible for all submitted text, data, citations, analyses, images, and conclusions.
  • Substantive AI-assisted use must be disclosed where required by the journal's Generative AI Policy.
  • AI-generated or AI-assisted references must be independently verified against the original scholarly source.
  • Authors must not use AI tools to fabricate participants, data, statistical outputs, quotations, references, ethics information, or research findings.
  • Automated AI-detection scores may inform editorial screening but are not treated as definitive proof of misconduct without contextual assessment.

Editorial Screening and Assessment

1
 Submission Screening
The submitted manuscript and mandatory similarity report are reviewed for originality and obvious integrity concerns.
2
 Contextual Evaluation
Editors assess the matched passages, source attribution, proportion, distribution, scholarly context, prior publications, and any explanation supplied by the authors.
3
 Clarification or Revision
Where concerns are potentially correctable, authors may be asked to provide clarification, revise attribution, correct references, or submit supporting documentation.
4
 Editorial Action
Where plagiarism or another integrity violation is substantiated, the Editor determines the appropriate action based on the seriousness, extent, evidence, publication stage, and applicable ethics policy.

Possible Editorial Actions

Editorial responses are proportionate to the evidence and severity of the concern. They are not determined by a similarity percentage alone.

  • Before external review: return for technical correction, request clarification, or desk rejection.
  • During peer review: suspend review, request documentation, require correction, or reject the manuscript.
  • After acceptance but before publication: pause production, reopen editorial assessment, withdraw acceptance where justified, or reject.
  • After publication: publish a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.
  • Where serious or systematic misconduct is credibly established, the journal may communicate with the relevant institution, ethics committee, funder, or other responsible body where appropriate.
Fair Process and Proportionality

IMCHP does not treat allegations, software scores, or unverified suspicions as proof of misconduct. Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns where appropriate. Any restriction on future submissions, institutional notification, or other significant sanction should be based on documented evidence, seriousness, recurrence, and applicable editorial-ethics procedures.

Author Responsibilities

  • Ensure that the manuscript is original and appropriately attributes all sources.
  • Use quotation marks and citations where verbatim material is reproduced and permission where legally required.
  • Disclose substantial overlap with preprints, theses, conference papers, protocols, earlier datasets, or related publications.
  • Do not submit substantially the same manuscript to another journal simultaneously.
  • Check every reference against the original source and verify DOI and bibliographic information where available.
  • Avoid fabricated references, citation padding, coercive citation, or irrelevant self-citation.
  • Disclose substantive generative AI use in accordance with the journal's policy.
  • Cooperate promptly with requests for clarification or correction concerning originality.

Responsible Text Reuse

Limited reuse of standardized methodological language or necessary technical descriptions may sometimes be appropriate, particularly when accurately describing established procedures. Authors should nevertheless cite relevant prior work, avoid misleading duplication, and rewrite material where feasible. Reuse of previously published results, discussion, interpretation, or substantial narrative text requires especially careful attribution and editorial transparency.

Relationship to the Publication Ethics Policy

Suspected plagiarism and related originality concerns are handled together with the broader IMCHP Publication Ethics framework. Where a case involves fabrication, falsification, authorship concerns, peer-review manipulation, ethics approval, duplicate publication, or another form of misconduct, the relevant publication-ethics procedures also apply.

© 2026 Innovation Midwifery and Child Health Practice (IMCHP)

Published by PT. Inovasi Analisis Data • E-ISSN 3063-1009 • P-ISSN 3063-1017