Plagiarism Policy

1. Introduction

Andalasian Livestock (ALive) is committed to publishing original, ethically conducted, and properly attributed scholarly research in animal science, livestock production, and related disciplines.

The journal considers plagiarism, misappropriation of intellectual contributions, and misleading duplication of previously published work to be serious violations of academic integrity.

All manuscripts submitted to Andalasian Livestock must demonstrate appropriate originality, accurately acknowledge relevant sources, and respect the intellectual property rights of other researchers and organizations.

The journal recognizes that originality assessment requires careful editorial judgment. Text similarity detection tools may help identify overlapping content, but similarity scores alone do not establish plagiarism or determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication.

This policy defines plagiarism and related publication practices, establishes expectations for authors, and outlines proposed procedures for originality screening, investigation, editorial decisions, and post-publication action.

The policy is informed by the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Description

2.1. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presentation or appropriation of another person's words, ideas, research methods, data, images, findings, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism may occur intentionally or unintentionally.

The editorial significance of plagiarism depends on the nature, extent, context, and consequences of the unattributed material.

Proper citation is essential but does not necessarily authorize extensive reproduction of copyrighted material.

2.2. Direct Textual Plagiarism

Direct textual plagiarism occurs when an author reproduces another person's words or substantial passages without appropriate quotation, citation, or other necessary acknowledgment.

Examples include:

• Copying paragraphs from published articles without attribution.

• Reproducing substantial passages from books, theses, or reports as original writing.

• Incorporating another author's text into a manuscript while concealing its source.

• Translating substantial passages from another language without acknowledging the original work.

2.3. Paraphrasing Plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism occurs when an author closely reproduces the ideas, structure, or distinctive expression of another work without appropriate acknowledgment.

Changing individual words or rearranging sentences does not make another person's intellectual contribution original.

Authors must accurately acknowledge the source of borrowed ideas, arguments, methods, or interpretations.

2.4. Idea and Conceptual Plagiarism

Idea plagiarism involves presenting another person's original concepts, hypotheses, research approaches, interpretations, or unpublished ideas as one's own.

This may include misappropriating information obtained through confidential peer review, unpublished manuscripts, research proposals, or professional correspondence.

The journal recognizes that general scientific knowledge and established methods may be discussed without treating every common concept as proprietary.

2.5. Data and Results Plagiarism

Data plagiarism involves presenting another researcher's observations, measurements, datasets, or findings as original without appropriate acknowledgment or authorization.

In livestock and animal science research, this may include:

• Reusing animal growth performance data without disclosure.

• Presenting previously published feed conversion or digestibility measurements as newly generated results.

• Copying reproductive performance datasets from another study.

• Reproducing genetic or genomic datasets without appropriate attribution.

• Misrepresenting laboratory measurements obtained from another source.

• Presenting previously published farm survey findings as original observations.

Legitimate secondary data analysis is permitted when the data source, permissions, and analytical contribution are transparently described.

2.6. Image, Figure, and Table Plagiarism

Image, figure, and table plagiarism includes unauthorized or misleading reuse of visual or tabular material.

Examples include:

• Reproducing a previously published figure without appropriate acknowledgment.

• Reusing photographs of livestock or experimental procedures without identifying their source.

• Presenting another study's tables as original results.

• Modifying an existing figure to conceal its origin.

• Reusing microscopy, laboratory, or diagnostic images as evidence of different experimental observations.

The journal distinguishes unauthorized reuse from inappropriate image manipulation or falsification, which may also constitute separate research integrity violations.

2.7. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Self-plagiarism, often discussed in connection with text recycling, occurs when authors reuse substantial portions of their own previously disseminated work without appropriate disclosure, citation, or justification.

Not all text recycling constitutes misconduct.

Limited overlap may be acceptable in descriptions of established methods, particularly where the same procedures are used across related studies and the prior source is appropriately acknowledged.

However, extensive undisclosed reuse that misrepresents the novelty or originality of a manuscript is unacceptable.

2.8. Redundant and Duplicate Publication

Redundant or duplicate publication occurs when substantially the same research findings are published or submitted for publication more than once without adequate disclosure, cross-referencing, or legitimate justification.

Examples include:

• Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.

• Publishing substantially identical research findings as separate original articles.

• Republishing an existing article under a different title.

• Dividing one study into multiple papers in a misleading manner without sufficient distinct scholarly contributions.

Related studies may be published separately when each offers a legitimate, identifiable contribution and relevant overlap is disclosed.

2.9. Similarity Index

A similarity index is a numerical indication of the proportion of text matched by a similarity detection system against materials in its accessible databases.

A similarity index is not a direct measurement of plagiarism.

Similarity may arise from legitimate sources, including:

• Reference lists.

• Properly attributed quotations.

• Standard technical terminology.

• Established methodological descriptions.

• Institutional names.

• Common scientific expressions.

• Previously disclosed preprints or theses.

• Material correctly cited and reused within applicable limits.

Editors must examine the matched content before determining whether plagiarism or unacceptable overlap has occurred.

3. Policy

3.1. Originality Requirement

Andalasian Livestock requires submitted manuscripts to represent original scholarly contributions appropriate to the journal's aims and scope.

Authors must accurately identify and acknowledge the sources of ideas, data, text, figures, methods, and other intellectual contributions.

Authors must not present previously published research as new work without adequate disclosure and a legitimate scholarly basis.

3.2. Prohibition of Plagiarism

The journal does not permit plagiarism in any form.

This prohibition applies to textual material, ideas, data, images, tables, research findings, and other protected or attributable intellectual contributions.

Alleged violations will be evaluated according to their nature, extent, available evidence, and implications for research integrity.

The journal will distinguish between inadvertent citation errors, correctable attribution problems, substantial plagiarism, and deliberate misappropriation.

3.3. Author Declaration of Originality

As a proposed submission requirement, authors should confirm that:

1. The manuscript contains original scholarly work.

2. All relevant sources have been appropriately cited.

3. Material obtained from other sources has been acknowledged.

4. Required permissions have been obtained.

5. Relevant prior dissemination has been disclosed.

6. The manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal.

7. The manuscript does not contain undisclosed redundant publication.

8. All authors have approved the submitted work.

The corresponding author should coordinate the declaration on behalf of the author group.

Each author remains responsible for the integrity of their own contribution.

3.4. Similarity Screening

Andalasian Livestock should conduct appropriate originality screening as part of its editorial assessment.

Screening may involve similarity detection software, editorial review, examination of cited sources, and comparison with previously published material.

The journal should not claim that all submissions are screened using a named commercial service unless that service is actually used.

3.5. Similarity Threshold

Similarity reports must be interpreted in context.

A numerical similarity threshold, if adopted, should function as an editorial screening indicator rather than conclusive evidence of plagiarism.

A manuscript should not be labeled plagiarized solely because its similarity score exceeds a numerical threshold.

Likewise, a low similarity score does not guarantee that the manuscript is free from plagiarism.

3.6. Editorial Interpretation of Similarity Reports

Editors should examine the location, nature, and significance of matched material.

Relevant considerations include:

• Whether the matched material is properly attributed.

• Whether the overlap involves standard scientific language.

• Whether the material appears in the Introduction, Methods, Results, or Discussion.

• Whether distinctive arguments or interpretations have been copied.

• Whether the overlap involves original data or findings.

• Whether the source is a preprint, thesis, or previous publication by the authors.

• Whether the manuscript provides a genuinely new scholarly contribution.

• Whether third-party permissions are required.

Particular attention should be given to overlap involving original results, analysis, and interpretation.

3.7. Plagiarism in Research Methods

The journal recognizes that livestock research may use standardized experimental and laboratory procedures.

Descriptions of common procedures may contain legitimate similarities to previously published methods.

Nevertheless, authors should cite relevant methodological sources and clearly identify modifications.

Extensive verbatim copying of methodological descriptions without appropriate acknowledgment may require correction or further assessment.

Reusing methodological text must not be used to misrepresent the experimental procedures actually performed.

3.8. Plagiarism in Livestock Research Data

The journal places particular emphasis on the originality and traceability of experimental observations.

Authors must not present previously published or externally obtained data as newly collected observations.

Where secondary data are used, the manuscript should explain:

• The original data source.

• The applicable permissions or licensing arrangements.

• The purpose of reuse.

• The analytical methods applied.

• The new scientific contribution.

Editors may request supporting documentation where concerns arise about the origin or authenticity of research data.

3.9. Reuse of Figures, Tables, and Photographs

Authors must properly acknowledge previously published figures, tables, and photographs.

Where required, authors must obtain permission from the relevant rights holder.

An appropriate citation does not necessarily eliminate the need for copyright permission.

Material adapted from another source must be clearly identified as adapted.

Images must not be altered in ways that misrepresent the scientific evidence.

Relevant concerns will also be evaluated under the journal's Intellectual Property Policy and Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

3.10. Preprints, Theses, and Conference Materials

Authors must disclose relevant prior dissemination of their manuscripts or research findings.

Preprints, theses, dissertations, conference abstracts, and other preliminary research outputs are not automatically treated as duplicate journal publications.

Their acceptability depends on the nature of the prior dissemination, the journal's Repository Policy, and the originality of the submitted manuscript.

Authors should identify relevant previous versions and provide appropriate citations or links.

A similarity match to a disclosed preprint or thesis should not automatically be classified as plagiarism.

However, authors must not conceal substantial prior publication or misrepresent the novelty of their work.

3.11. Simultaneous Submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript for consideration by more than one journal at the same time.

If the manuscript is already under consideration elsewhere, the authors must resolve that submission before submitting to Andalasian Livestock.

Any exception involving a legitimate coordinated publication arrangement would require explicit prior authorization and transparent disclosure.

3.12. Redundant Publication and Overlapping Studies

Authors must disclose related articles, manuscripts, or datasets that substantially overlap with the submitted work.

The editorial team may request copies of related materials to assess originality.

Multiple publications arising from a common experiment may be acceptable when each article addresses a sufficiently distinct research question and transparently acknowledges related publications.

Artificial fragmentation of research solely to increase publication counts is unacceptable when it misleads readers about the independence or novelty of the findings.

3.13. Citation Integrity

Authors must provide accurate and relevant citations.

Citations should acknowledge the actual sources of information and intellectual contributions.

The following practices are unacceptable:

• Fabricating references.

• Citing sources that do not support the associated claims.

• Deliberately concealing original sources.

• Misrepresenting secondary sources as primary evidence.

• Adding irrelevant citations to manipulate citation metrics.

• Using references to create a misleading impression of scholarly support.

Editors and reviewers must not pressure authors to add unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing citation counts.

3.14. Generative AI and Plagiarism

Authors remain responsible for the originality and integrity of all submitted material, including content prepared with assistance from generative artificial intelligence.

AI-generated or AI-assisted text must not reproduce another person's intellectual contributions without appropriate attribution.

Authors must verify the accuracy of citations and ensure that AI tools have not introduced fabricated references or misleading claims.

The use of AI does not excuse plagiarism or copyright infringement.

AI-writing detection scores and text similarity scores measure different phenomena and must not be treated as interchangeable evidence.

Relevant requirements are addressed further in the journal's Generative AI Policy.

3.15. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap, or unattributed reuse to the handling editor.

Reviewers should provide specific information or supporting sources where possible.

Reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality and must not upload confidential submissions to unauthorized external services.

Reviewers must not appropriate ideas, methods, data, or other material from manuscripts under review.

3.16. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for assessing credible originality concerns fairly and consistently.

Editors should:

• Evaluate similarity reports using professional judgment.

• Examine relevant source documents.

• Distinguish legitimate overlap from plagiarism.

• Consider author explanations and supporting evidence.

• Avoid unsupported allegations.

• Maintain appropriate confidentiality.

• Document material decisions.

• Refer serious allegations through established publication ethics procedures.

Editorial decisions must not be based solely on numerical similarity scores.

3.17. Suspected Plagiarism Before Publication

When potential plagiarism is identified in a submitted manuscript, the editorial team should assess the seriousness of the concern.

Possible actions include:

Request for Clarification

Where the nature of the overlap is uncertain.

Request for Revision

Where limited citation or attribution problems can reasonably be corrected without compromising the manuscript's originality.

Rejection

Where substantial plagiarism, misleading duplication, or another serious integrity concern makes the manuscript unsuitable for publication.

Referral for Further Investigation

Where the evidence suggests significant misconduct requiring assessment by the authors' institution or another competent body.

Authors should ordinarily be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.

The journal may reject a manuscript when serious concerns remain unresolved.

3.18. Suspected Plagiarism After Publication

Credible allegations concerning published articles will be assessed under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy and Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy.

The journal may request explanations, source documents, permissions, and relevant supporting evidence.

Depending on the findings, editorial action may include:

Correction

When an attribution or permission problem can be adequately corrected and the scholarly contribution remains reliable.

Expression of Concern

When substantial unresolved concerns justify informing readers.

Retraction

When serious plagiarism, substantial redundant publication, or another significant integrity problem warrants withdrawal of the article's scholarly claims.

No Further Action

When the allegation is unsupported or satisfactorily resolved.

Retraction is not an automatic response to every citation error or instance of textual overlap.

3.19. Institutional Notification

The journal may contact relevant research institutions or other competent authorities when credible evidence indicates serious research or publication misconduct.

Institutional notification should be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and handled with appropriate confidentiality.

The journal should distinguish its editorial responsibilities from the institution's authority to investigate researcher conduct.

3.20. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Appeals

All allegations must be assessed fairly and without discrimination.

Individuals whose conduct is questioned should ordinarily have an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Confidential information should be shared only with those who have a legitimate role in the assessment.

Good-faith reports should be considered without retaliation.

Authors and other affected parties may seek reconsideration under the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

3.21. Recordkeeping

The editorial office should securely maintain relevant similarity reports, source comparisons, author explanations, correspondence, and editorial decisions.

Records should be retained in accordance with applicable institutional, legal, and data protection requirements.

3.22. Prevention and Education

Andalasian Livestock encourages responsible scholarly writing and accurate attribution.

The journal should provide clear guidance to authors concerning:

• Originality and appropriate citation.

• Proper paraphrasing.

• Reuse of previously published material.

• Disclosure of preprints and related publications.

• Data and image attribution.

• Copyright permissions.

• Responsible use of AI-assisted tools.

The journal should periodically review its screening procedures and editorial practices.

4. Implementation and Procedures

4.1. Originality Declaration at Submission

As a proposed implementation requirement, the OJS submission checklist should require authors to confirm that their manuscript is original, properly attributed, and not simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

Authors should disclose related publications and relevant prior dissemination.

4.2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial office should review manuscripts for completeness, suitability, and potential originality concerns.

Where an approved similarity detection system is available, a similarity report should be generated at the designated screening stage.

The editorial office should verify that the report corresponds to the correct manuscript version.

4.3. Similarity Report Evaluation

The handling editor should review relevant matches and determine whether they require further investigation.

The assessment should consider:

1. The nature of the matched text.

2. The original source.

3. The presence or absence of appropriate attribution.

4. The significance of the overlapping material.

5. The relationship between the submission and previously disseminated versions.

6. Whether the overlap compromises the manuscript's originality.

The editor should not rely exclusively on the overall similarity percentage.

4.4. Requests for Author Clarification

When an originality concern requires clarification, the editorial office should inform the corresponding author of the specific issue.

The author may be asked to provide:

• An explanation of the overlap.

• Relevant source documents.

• Evidence of prior dissemination.

• Copyright permissions.

• Corrected citations or attribution.

• Revised manuscript sections.

• Supporting information about data provenance.

The response should be evaluated before a final decision is made, except where an administrative or editorial decision can properly be reached on other grounds.

4.5. Assessment of Serious Allegations

Serious allegations should be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized, unconflicted editor.

The journal may seek independent advice or refer the matter to an appropriate institution.

The process should follow the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

4.6. Editorial Decisions

Following assessment, the editorial team may:

• Allow the manuscript to proceed.

• Request limited corrections.

• Request substantial revision.

• Reject the manuscript.

• Suspend processing pending clarification.

• Refer serious concerns for further investigation.

Decisions should be supported by documented reasons.

4.7. Screening of Revised Manuscripts

Where substantial textual changes have been made, the editorial office may conduct an additional similarity assessment.

The journal should consider whether previously identified concerns have been adequately resolved.

A revised similarity score alone does not establish that the underlying originality concern has been corrected.

4.8. Post-Publication Procedures

When plagiarism is reported after publication, the editorial team should:

1. Register the concern.

2. Review the published article and relevant sources.

3. Evaluate the available evidence.

4. Request an author response where appropriate.

5. Obtain independent or institutional input when necessary.

6. Determine the appropriate editorial action.

7. Publish a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction notice where justified.

8. Update relevant publication metadata and records.

4.9. Technical Implementation in OJS

The journal should align its OJS submission and editorial procedures with the approved plagiarism policy.

Recommended actions include:

• Adding an originality declaration to the submission checklist.

• Providing a clear policy link in Author Guidelines.

• Defining responsibility for similarity screening.

• Establishing a secure procedure for storing reports.

• Documenting editorial decisions concerning overlap.

• Providing a mechanism for author clarification and appeal.

4.10. Policy Review

The editorial team should periodically review this policy to ensure that originality assessment remains fair, technically appropriate, and consistent with developments in publication ethics.