01 Originality and attribution

Journal of Educational Innovation in Science and Technology requires authors to distinguish their own contribution from material created by others. Attribution is required for ideas, language, data, illustrations and software, including material obtained online or translated from another language. A citation alone does not justify reproducing extensive wording without quotation or any permission that may be needed.

02 Related and previously disseminated work

Authors must identify related submissions, earlier publications, theses, preprints and conference versions in the submission information. Explain the new contribution and any shared data or text. Prior dissemination is assessed in context; it is not automatically equated with misconduct. Undisclosed duplicate submission or misleading presentation of previously published results may compromise consideration.

03 Assessment of overlap

Editors examine the location, extent and significance of overlap alongside the sources. Where a similarity report is available, it is supporting evidence, not a verdict. Bibliographies, quotations, standard terminology and methods may produce matches. Conversely, a low score does not establish originality. This policy does not impose an unsupported universal percentage or claim use of a particular screening service.

04 Clarification and fair handling

A concern should identify the disputed passages and their sources. The handling editor records the evidence, requests an explanation and allows a reasonable opportunity to respond. A conflicted editor is replaced for that assessment. Where investigation requires access to research records beyond the journal’s authority, the relevant institution may be asked to investigate; an allegation is not a finding of guilt.

05 Outcomes and the published record

Action depends on the evidence and the effect on the work. It may include clarification, corrected attribution, substantive revision, rejection or referral for further investigation. For published work, the editor considers a linked correction, expression of concern or retraction rather than silently changing the article. Any additional restrictions must be justified and communicated, not imposed automatically from a similarity score.

06 Appeals and responsible reporting

Authors may challenge an assessment through the complaints and appeals process, identifying overlooked evidence or a procedural error. Readers may report concerns using the editorial contact below. Provide sufficient evidence without publicly disclosing confidential manuscripts or personal records. The journal keeps an appropriate record of the assessment and communicates its outcome to the parties concerned.

07 Journal-specific provisions — retained content

JEIST does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, redundant publication, simultaneous submission, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or other breaches of research integrity. Manuscripts may be screened with similarity-checking software before review, during editorial processing, or after publication when a reasonable concern is raised.

A similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for a decision. Editors examine the source and pattern of overlap, including unattributed copying, excessively close paraphrasing, reuse of an author's own work without adequate citation, and similarity in legitimately standardized sections. Limited problems may be returned for correction, while serious misconduct may result in rejection.

Concerns raised after publication are investigated fairly, with relevant parties given an opportunity to respond. Depending on the evidence, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction and may contact the authors' institution when appropriate. JEIST follows Committee on Publication Ethics guidance when addressing suspected misconduct.