Research Integrity & Misconduct

The International Center for Promoting Knowledge (ICPK) is committed to protecting the accuracy, originality, and reliability of the scholarly record. This plagiarism and research misconduct policy defines the conduct that may compromise that record, explains ICPK’s current similarity checking practices, and sets out how concerns involving submitted or published work are handled.

ICPK provides publishing infrastructure, policy, and administrative support. Editorial authority remains with each journal’s Editor-in-Chief and editorial board. Editors assess concerns and decide the appropriate editorial response independently of commercial considerations, including any article processing charge, waiver, or funding status.

This policy should be read with ICPK’s Publication Ethics, AI Use Policy, Corrections & Retractions, and Complaints & Appeals policies.

Principles of research integrity

Authors must honestly represent how research was conceived, conducted, analysed, and reported. Sources must be acknowledged, data and images presented accurately, and prior dissemination disclosed.

ICPK follows widely used principles of transparency and best practice as a matter of publishing practice. Concerns are evaluated fairly, consistently, and in context. A concern does not by itself establish misconduct, and an allegation will not be treated as a finding before the available information and the author’s response have been considered.

Conduct covered by this policy

Research misconduct and related publication misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s work or intellectual contribution as one’s own, or using it without appropriate acknowledgement. It is not limited to copied wording: it may involve ideas, arguments, methods, research designs, data, results, tables, figures, images, or other original material. Translation, paraphrasing, rearrangement, or minor alteration does not remove the obligation to cite. Quoted text must be identified and referenced.

Fabrication

Fabrication is making up data, observations, participants, cases, interviews, citations, results, materials, procedures, or evidence and reporting them as genuine.

Falsification

Falsification is manipulating research materials, processes, images, data, analyses, or results, or omitting or changing relevant information, so the research is represented inaccurately. Improper image manipulation obscures, removes, introduces, moves, combines, or exaggerates features misleadingly. Improper data manipulation includes alteration, suppression, duplication, relabelling, or presentation that materially distorts evidence or interpretation. Legitimate technical adjustments must not change the record’s meaning and should be disclosed when necessary.

Duplicate or redundant publication

Duplicate publication occurs when substantially the same work is published more than once without transparent disclosure, citation, and any necessary editorial agreement. Redundant publication includes dividing or repackaging substantially overlapping data, analysis, or conclusions to create a misleading impression of distinct research. Authors must disclose related manuscripts and prior dissemination.

Concurrent submission

A manuscript must not be under consideration by more than one journal at the same time. Authors must withdraw it from one journal and receive confirmation before submitting it elsewhere.

Uncited reuse of an author’s own work

Reusing substantial portions of one’s own published text, data, figures, tables, analysis, or other material without citation or clear disclosure is unacceptable. Authors must cite the earlier work, explain legitimate overlap, and comply with applicable rights. Necessary limited repetition must not mislead readers about what is new.

Undisclosed AI-generated content

Undisclosed AI-generated content, or AI use that misrepresents authorship, originality, evidence, or the research process, falls within this policy. Permitted uses and disclosure requirements appear in the AI Use Policy. Authors remain accountable for everything they submit.

Similarity checking and editorial assessment

Submissions are screened using Turnitin, alongside additional third-party similarity tools and comparison against ICPK’s own archive of published and submitted manuscripts. Screening may occur during editorial assessment and may be repeated when revised material or new information warrants further review.

A similarity report is a starting point for assessment, not a verdict. Properly quoted and cited passages, reference lists, standard methodological wording, instrument names, technical terminology, and common phrases can all produce matches without indicating plagiarism or other misconduct. Conversely, problematic appropriation of ideas, data, figures, or heavily paraphrased material may require close editorial analysis even when text matching alone does not reveal the issue.

An editor reviews each report in context, considering the nature, extent, location, source, attribution, and relevance of matches. Editorial judgement determines the outcome; no automatic percentage threshold establishes acceptability or misconduct. Authors may be asked to clarify sources, provide materials, correct attribution, or explain overlap.

Raising and assessing a concern

A concern may be raised by an editor, reviewer, author, reader, research participant, institution, or any other person with relevant information. Concerns should identify the work involved and provide specific details and supporting material where available. Anonymous concerns may be considered when they contain enough information to permit a meaningful assessment.

The journal’s editor first assesses whether the concern is specific, credible, and relevant to a submitted or published record. The editor may examine the work, similarity reports, sources, available data or images, correspondence, and other relevant documentation. Unsupported, vague, or unrelated claims may be closed, although new substantive evidence may be considered.

When further examination is required, the corresponding author will be told what has been raised and given a genuine opportunity to respond before any conclusion. The editor may request an explanation, source files, original data, ethics documentation, contributor information, or other relevant material. Co-authors may also be contacted.

Where a formal investigation of research conduct may be needed, the matter may be referred to the author’s institution or another body with standing to investigate. ICPK’s role is limited to the submitted or published record and the editorial action warranted by available information. The journal may act on reliable institutional findings while retaining responsibility for its publication decision.

Outcomes and the scholarly record

For a submission, an established concern may lead to requests for clarification or revision, withdrawal from consideration, or rejection. For published work, possible actions include a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. The purpose of these measures is to keep the scholarly record accurate and transparent, not to impose employment or disciplinary sanctions. The applicable notices, standards, and links between records are addressed in Corrections & Retractions.

Authors or complainants who believe a process or decision was not handled properly may use the route described in Complaints & Appeals. An appeal is not a new investigation merely because a party disagrees with an outcome; it should identify a relevant procedural problem, factual error, or material evidence that was not previously considered.

Confidentiality and good-faith reporting

Information concerning an allegation will be shared only so far as practical and necessary to assess the matter, obtain a response, seek relevant expertise, refer the concern to a competent institution, or correct the record. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required for a fair assessment, institutional investigation, legal obligation, or transparent editorial notice.

Anyone who raises a concern in good faith will be protected from retaliation within ICPK’s and the journal’s control. A concern will not be dismissed because it is inconvenient or critical. Knowingly false, malicious, or harassing allegations, however, are not protected as good-faith reporting. Editors will focus on the evidence and the integrity of the record rather than the identity, status, or motives attributed to the person raising the concern.