Plagiarism Policy

सत्यमेव जयते नानृतं सत्येन पन्था विततो देवयानः।
येनाक्रमन्त्यृषयो ह्याप्तकामा यत्र तत्‌ सत्यस्य परमं निधानम्‌॥

Truth alone triumphs, not falsehood. Through truth the divine path is spread out by which the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled, reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides.
— Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6

Poorvam International Journal of Creative Arts and Cultural Expressions (PIJCACE) maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism and all forms of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism undermines the integrity of scholarly discourse, violates intellectual property rights, and diminishes the value of original research. This comprehensive policy outlines our approach to detecting, preventing, and addressing plagiarism in accordance with international publishing standards and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

1. Policy Statement and Scope
2. Definition and Types of Plagiarism
3. Plagiarism Detection Methods
4. Similarity Thresholds and Assessment
5. Consequences and Sanctions
6. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling
7. Proper Citation and Attribution
8. Author Responsibilities
9. Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

1. Policy Statement and Scope

Core Principle

PIJCACE is committed to publishing only original scholarly work that properly acknowledges all sources and intellectual contributions. Plagiarism in any form constitutes a serious breach of academic integrity and publication ethics.

Applicability

This policy applies to:

All manuscript submissions to PIJCACE
All published articles, reviews, and creative works
All supplementary materials, figures, and data
Both original submissions and revised manuscripts
Pre-publication and post-publication contexts

Zero-Tolerance Commitment: PIJCACE maintains a zero-tolerance approach to plagiarism. Any detected plagiarism will result in immediate rejection during review or retraction after publication, along with appropriate sanctions as outlined in this policy.

Alignment with International Standards

This policy aligns with:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations
CrossRef and DOI integrity standards
DOAJ and Scopus ethical publishing requirements

2. Definition and Types of Plagiarism

Definition

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others' research proposals and manuscripts.

Forms of Plagiarism

1. Direct Plagiarism

Word-for-word copying of text from another source without quotation marks or proper citation. This is the most obvious and serious form of plagiarism.

2. Mosaic Plagiarism

Borrowing phrases, sentences, or paragraphs from a source and mixing them with one's own words without proper attribution. Also known as "patchwriting."

3. Paraphrasing Plagiarism

Rephrasing someone else's ideas or text without sufficient transformation or proper citation, making it appear as original work.

4. Idea Plagiarism

Presenting another person's original ideas, theories, frameworks, or methodologies as one's own without acknowledgment.

5. Self-Plagiarism

Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without proper citation and disclosure. See Section 6 for detailed policy.

6. Source Citation Plagiarism

Citing sources incorrectly or citing sources not actually consulted to give false impression of thorough research.

7. Image/Data Plagiarism

Using images, figures, tables, or data from other sources without permission or proper attribution.

8. Translation Plagiarism

Translating text from another language and presenting it as original work without citing the original source.

9. Structural Plagiarism

Copying the organizational structure, headings, or argumentative framework of another work without acknowledgment.

Important Note: Unintentional plagiarism due to poor citation practices is still considered plagiarism. Authors are responsible for ensuring all sources are properly acknowledged regardless of intent.

3. Plagiarism Detection Methods

Automated Detection Tools

PIJCACE employs industry-standard plagiarism detection software to screen all submissions:

Primary Detection Tools:

Turnitin/iThenticate: Comprehensive database comparison with academic publications, web content, and student papers
Crossref Similarity Check: Cross-referencing against scholarly literature indexed in CrossRef
Copyscape: Web-based plagiarism detection for online sources
Grammarly Plagiarism Checker: Supplementary verification tool

Multi-Stage Screening Process

Initial Automated Screening

All submissions undergo automated plagiarism detection within 48 hours of receipt. The system generates a similarity report with percentage matches and source identification.

Editorial Review of Report

The editorial office reviews similarity reports to distinguish between:

Legitimate citations and quotations
Common phrases and terminology
Problematic similarities requiring investigation

Manual Expert Assessment

Manuscripts with concerning similarity levels are manually reviewed by subject experts who evaluate context, attribution quality, and scholarly standards.

Author Communication

If potential plagiarism is identified, authors are contacted for explanation and given opportunity to provide clarification or corrections.

Final Decision

Based on evidence and author response, the editorial team makes a final determination and implements appropriate actions.

Manual Detection Methods

In addition to automated tools, editors and reviewers identify plagiarism through:

Recognition of writing style inconsistencies
Identification of outdated references or context
Detection of formatting or citation irregularities
Cross-referencing with known published literature
Google Scholar and database searches for suspicious passages

4. Similarity Thresholds and Assessment

Interpretation of Similarity Scores

Similarity percentage alone does not determine plagiarism. The editorial team evaluates the context, nature of matches, and quality of attribution.

General Thresholds and Actions

Similarity Level	Typical Range	Assessment	Standard Action
Low	0–15%	Generally acceptable if matches are properly cited quotations, common phrases, or methodology descriptions	Proceed to review
Moderate	15–30%	Requires editorial scrutiny to verify proper attribution and identify any problematic passages	Manual review; may require revision
High	30–50%	Concerning level requiring detailed investigation of all matches and citation practices	Author explanation required; likely major revision or rejection
Very High	Above 50%	Strongly indicative of plagiarism unless manuscript is a review article with extensive properly cited quotations	Desk rejection; possible sanctions

Context Matters: A 20% similarity score might be acceptable for a review article with extensive quotations but problematic for an empirical research article. The editorial team evaluates each case individually based on manuscript type, field conventions, and attribution quality.

Acceptable Similarities

The following types of matches are generally acceptable and excluded from plagiarism assessment:

Properly cited direct quotations (in quotation marks with citation)
Common knowledge or standard definitions
Standard methodology descriptions common to the field
Author's own previously published work when properly cited
Bibliography and references section
Common technical terminology and phrases

5. Consequences and Sanctions

During Submission and Review

Minor Plagiarism (Inadequate Citation)

If plagiarism appears unintentional and limited to poor citation practices:

Manuscript returned to authors for immediate correction
Detailed explanation of proper citation requirements provided
Re-screening required after revision
Warning issued and documented in editorial records

Moderate Plagiarism (Multiple Attribution Failures)

If substantial portions lack proper attribution but work shows some originality:

Manuscript rejected with detailed explanation
Authors may be invited to completely rewrite and resubmit (no guarantee of acceptance)
Formal warning letter sent to all authors
Notification to corresponding author's institution
Authors placed under increased scrutiny for future submissions

Severe Plagiarism (Substantial Copying)

If manuscript contains extensive plagiarized content:

Immediate rejection with no opportunity to revise
Notification to all authors' institutions with evidence
Ban from submitting to PIJCACE for minimum 2 years
Report to COPE and relevant academic integrity bodies
Entry in editorial database for plagiarism tracking
Potential notification to other journals in the field

Post-Publication Discovery

Plagiarism Detected After Publication

If plagiarism is discovered after an article has been published:

Investigation: Thorough investigation conducted following COPE guidelines
Author Notification: Authors given opportunity to respond within 14 days
Institutional Contact: Authors' institutions notified and asked to investigate
Retraction: Article retracted if plagiarism confirmed, with public retraction notice
DOI Marking: DOI marked as retracted in all databases
Permanent Record: Retracted article remains online with "RETRACTED" watermark
Author Sanctions: Permanent ban from publishing in PIJCACE
Network Notification: Retraction reported to indexing services, COPE, and relevant bodies

No Statute of Limitations: There is no time limit for investigating plagiarism allegations. Articles may be retracted regardless of publication date if plagiarism is confirmed.

Repeat Offenders

Authors with multiple plagiarism violations face:

Permanent ban from PIJCACE and all Dhvani Publication journals
Formal complaint filed with institutions and funding agencies
Public statement on journal website
Notification to academic integrity databases and watchdog organizations

6. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Definition of Self-Plagiarism

Self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse substantial portions of their own previously published work in a new manuscript without proper citation and disclosure. This practice, also called "text recycling," is problematic because it:

Misleads readers about the novelty of research
Inflates publication records artificially
May violate copyright transfer agreements
Wastes reviewers' time and journal resources
Fragments research unnecessarily (salami slicing)

Unacceptable Self-Plagiarism

The following practices constitute self-plagiarism and are prohibited:

Duplicate Publication: Submitting substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals
Salami Slicing: Dividing a single study into multiple papers with overlapping content
Text Recycling Without Citation: Reusing substantial text from previous publications without acknowledgment
Redundant Publication: Publishing the same findings in multiple venues without disclosure

Acceptable Reuse of Own Work

Authors may reuse their previous work under the following conditions:

Methodology Descriptions: Standard methods from previous studies may be described using similar text if properly cited
Background Information: Brief reuse of background from previous publications when contextually necessary and cited
Extended Research: Longitudinal studies or follow-up research may reference prior findings with clear citation
Thesis to Article: Converting thesis/dissertation to journal article is acceptable with disclosure

Disclosure Requirement: Authors must always disclose any relationship between the submitted manuscript and their previous publications in the cover letter, and cite their own work appropriately in the manuscript.

Maximum Acceptable Self-Overlap

While context-dependent, PIJCACE generally considers:

Up to 30% overlap with author's previous work as potentially acceptable if properly cited
Over 30% overlap as problematic and likely constituting self-plagiarism
Any overlap in results, findings, or conclusions sections as serious concern

7. Proper Citation and Attribution

When to Cite

Authors must provide citations for:

Direct quotations from any source (with quotation marks)
Paraphrased ideas, theories, or arguments from others
Statistical data or research findings from other studies
Figures, tables, images, or charts from other sources
Unpublished materials (with permission)
Personal communications (with permission)
Author's own previously published work

Citation Style Requirements

Mandatory Style: PIJCACE requires MLA 9th Edition citation style for all manuscripts.

Resources:

Official MLA Handbook (9th edition)
Purdue OWL MLA Formatting Guide
PIJCACE Author Guidelines for citation examples

Quotation Guidelines

Short Quotations (fewer than 4 lines)

Integrate into text with quotation marks
Include in-text citation with page number
Example: Mehta argues that "traditional aesthetics must be reexamined through contemporary lenses" (45).

Long Quotations (4 or more lines)

Format as block quote (indented, no quotation marks)
Include citation after closing punctuation
Use sparingly and only when exact wording is essential

Paraphrasing Best Practices

ORIGINAL TEXT:

"The incorporation of classical Indian aesthetics into contemporary performance art represents a significant shift in how traditional knowledge systems are being recontextualized for modern audiences."

UNACCEPTABLE PARAPHRASE (Too Close to Original):

The integration of classical Indian aesthetics into contemporary performance represents a major shift in how traditional knowledge is being recontextualized for modern audiences.

ACCEPTABLE PARAPHRASE:

Contemporary performance artists are increasingly drawing upon India's classical aesthetic traditions, demonstrating evolving approaches to making historical knowledge relevant for today's viewers (Author 123).

Common Citation Errors to Avoid

Citing sources not actually consulted (citation padding)
Incorrect page numbers or publication details
Missing citations for paraphrased content
Inconsistent citation format throughout manuscript
Failure to cite figures, tables, or data
Omitting citations for author's own previous work

8. Author Responsibilities

Pre-Submission Obligations

Before submitting to PIJCACE, authors must:

Verify that all content is original or properly attributed
Ensure all citations are accurate and complete
Run their own plagiarism check using available tools
Disclose any relationship to previously published work
Obtain permissions for copyrighted materials
Ensure all co-authors have approved the final manuscript

During Review Process

Authors must:

Respond promptly to any editor requests regarding citations
Provide source materials if requested for verification
Correct any citation errors identified during review
Not submit the manuscript to another journal simultaneously

Post-Publication Responsibilities

After publication, authors must:

Notify the journal immediately if errors or plagiarism are discovered
Cooperate with any investigations of alleged plagiarism
Properly cite their PIJCACE publication in future work
Not reuse substantial portions without proper self-citation

Corresponding Author Responsibility: The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring all co-authors have reviewed the manuscript for proper attribution and agree to submission. They serve as the primary point of contact for plagiarism-related inquiries.

Educational Resources

PIJCACE encourages authors to utilize these resources for proper citation practices:

MLA Style Center: style.mla.org
Purdue OWL: owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style
COPE Guidelines: publicationethics.org
PIJCACE Submission Guidelines: poorvam.com/guidelines.php

9. Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

How to Report

PIJCACE welcomes reports of suspected plagiarism from any source, including readers, reviewers, editors, or automated detection systems.

Reporting Procedure:

Email: editor@poorvam.com
Subject Line: "Plagiarism Report – [Manuscript Title or DOI]"
Include:
- Manuscript title and/or DOI
- Author names
- Specific passages of concern
- Original source(s) with complete citations
- Supporting evidence (similarity report, screenshots, etc.)

Investigation Process

Upon receiving a plagiarism report:

Acknowledgment: Reporter receives confirmation within 5 business days
Initial Assessment: Editorial office conducts preliminary evaluation
Evidence Gathering: Additional plagiarism checks and source verification
Author Notification: Authors informed and given 14 days to respond
Expert Review: Subject experts may be consulted for complex cases
Decision: Final determination made by Editor-in-Chief
Action Implementation: Appropriate sanctions applied
Reporter Notification: Reporter informed of outcome (details depend on confidentiality)

Confidentiality

All plagiarism investigations are conducted confidentially. Reporter identities are protected unless disclosure is legally required or the reporter explicitly agrees to be identified.

Protection Against Retaliation

Whistleblower Protection: PIJCACE prohibits retaliation against individuals who report suspected plagiarism in good faith. Any retaliation should be reported immediately to editor@poorvam.com.

False Allegations

While we encourage reporting of suspected plagiarism, knowingly making false allegations is a serious breach of ethics. False allegations made in bad faith may result in action against the reporter.

Policy Updates and Revisions

This plagiarism policy is reviewed annually and updated as needed to reflect evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.

Current Version: 2.0 (January 2026)
Next Review: January 2027

Questions or Concerns

For questions about this plagiarism policy or to report suspected violations:

Email: editor@poorvam.com
Editor-in-Chief: Amritanath Bhattacharya
Website: poorvam.com

Published by Dhvani Publication