Purpose and Scope
This policy governs textual and substantive overlap in manuscripts and published work. It addresses plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, and related practices while recognizing that not all similarity is unethical.
Assessment should focus on what has been reused, whether attribution and permission are adequate, whether readers or editors could be misled about originality, and whether the overlap affects the scientific contribution or publication record.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism involves presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, images, methods, results, or other intellectual material as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement. It can occur through direct copying, close paraphrase, translation, unattributed adaptation, or other forms of misappropriation.
The seriousness of a case depends on the nature and extent of the material, its intellectual significance, attribution, intent where relevant, and the effect on readers and the scholarly record.
Text Recycling and Reuse of an Author’s Prior Work
Reuse of an author’s own previously disseminated text is not identical to plagiarism, but it can be inappropriate when it obscures the novelty of a manuscript, duplicates substantial content, misleads readers about originality, or breaches copyright or licensing conditions.
Limited reuse of standardized methodological or descriptive language may sometimes be reasonable when accurate rewriting would add little value, provided the reuse is transparent and compatible with applicable rights and journal expectations. Results, discussion, interpretation, and claims of novelty generally require greater originality and transparency.
Redundant and Duplicate Publication
Authors should not publish substantially the same work more than once in a manner that creates a misleading duplicate scholarly record. Manuscripts derived from the same dataset may be legitimate when they address materially distinct questions and appropriately disclose and cite related outputs.
Secondary publication, translations, conference materials, protocols, preprints, and other prior dissemination require contextual assessment under the journal’s policies; prior availability does not automatically constitute prohibited duplicate publication.
Similarity Screening
Treata journals may use similarity-detection tools as part of editorial screening. A similarity percentage is not a plagiarism finding, and no universal percentage threshold can reliably determine whether a manuscript is acceptable.
Editors should inspect the matched material, its sources, distribution, attribution, type, and relevance. Bibliographies, standard phrases, methods, legally required language, preprints, and correctly quoted material can contribute to a similarity score without constituting misconduct.
Citation, Attribution and Permissions
Authors should cite relevant sources accurately and make clear when text, figures, tables, instruments, or other materials are reproduced or adapted. Citation alone does not necessarily provide permission to reuse copyrighted material, and permission alone does not eliminate the need for scholarly attribution.
Third-party content must also comply with applicable copyright, license, and permission requirements.
Assessment Before Publication
When problematic overlap is identified before publication, editors may request explanation, revision, citation, removal or replacement of material, documentation of permission, or other corrective action. Serious or deceptive cases may justify rejection and, where appropriate, further integrity assessment.
Authors should be given an appropriate opportunity to explain material concerns. Screening evidence should be interpreted by a qualified person rather than converted automatically into an editorial decision.
Published Overlap and Record Correction
If problematic overlap is discovered after publication, the journal should assess whether the issue can be addressed by a correction or whether the reliability, originality, or legitimacy of the publication is sufficiently compromised to require retraction or another notice.
Where duplicate publications exist, notices should make the relationship between records clear so readers and indexing systems are not left with an unexplained duplicate evidence base.
Systematic or Deceptive Patterns
Extensive unattributed copying, repeated redundant publication, fabricated citations, coordinated submission patterns, or overlap associated with other signs of manipulation may warrant assessment under the Research Misconduct policy.
Pattern evidence should be evaluated carefully and should not be inferred solely from one automated measure.
Journal Implementation and Version Control
This policy is publisher mandatory. Journals may publish discipline-specific expectations for prior dissemination, thesis material, conference proceedings, methods reuse, translations, or article families, provided those expectations remain consistent with transparent attribution and a reliable publication record.
Material policy changes should be versioned and preserved.
Version Control
Version 1.0. This page is the canonical publisher-level text for the current version. Material revisions should be versioned and dated, while superseded versions remain identifiable so that historical applicability can be determined.