1. General Statement
The International Journal of Islamic Education, Research and Multiculturalism (IJIERM) is committed to maintaining the originality, integrity, transparency, and reliability of scholarly publications in Islamic Education, Islamic Studies, and Multicultural Studies. IJIERM does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate text reuse, duplicate publication, or other practices that misrepresent the originality or integrity of research.

This policy establishes the journal's procedures for identifying, assessing, and responding to potential plagiarism and problematic textual overlap in submitted and published manuscripts. The policy is informed by the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including its procedures for addressing suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscripts and published articles. All authors are responsible for ensuring that their submissions constitute original scholarly work, appropriately acknowledge relevant sources, and comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

2. Definition and Forms of Plagiarism
Plagiarism occurs when an individual presents another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, images, interpretations, or other intellectual contributions as their own without appropriate acknowledgment. Plagiarism may include, but is not limited to:

2.1. Direct Plagiarism
Reproducing text from another source without appropriate quotation, citation, or acknowledgment.

2.2. Paraphrasing Plagiarism
Rewriting another author's ideas, arguments, or distinctive expressions without adequately acknowledging the original source.

2.3. Idea and Conceptual Plagiarism
Presenting another researcher's original concepts, theoretical interpretations, analytical frameworks, or intellectual contributions without appropriate attribution.

2.4. Data and Research Plagiarism
Using another person's datasets, empirical findings, interview excerpts, observations, research instruments, or analytical results without proper acknowledgment or authorization where required.

2.5. Translation Plagiarism
Translating material from another language and presenting the translated content as original work without appropriately acknowledging the source.

2.6. Image and Visual Plagiarism
Reproducing or adapting figures, tables, diagrams, photographs, or other visual materials without proper attribution or required permissions.

2.7. Inappropriate Text Recycling
Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without adequate disclosure, citation, or justification.

Text recycling is evaluated according to its extent, location, purpose, transparency, and effect on the originality of the submitted work. Not every instance of textual overlap constitutes plagiarism. Properly attributed quotations, standard methodological terminology, commonly used expressions, and other legitimate overlaps must be assessed in context.

3. Originality Declaration
All authors must confirm that:

1. The manuscript is original and has not been published elsewhere in substantially the same form.
2. The manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
3. All sources of ideas, information, quotations, data, and visual materials have been properly acknowledged.
4. Relevant overlap with preprints, conference papers, theses, dissertations, research reports, or related publications has been disclosed.
5. Necessary permissions have been obtained for copyrighted materials where applicable.
6. All authors have approved the submitted manuscript and accept appropriate responsibility for its integrity.

Authors may be required to complete the journal's originality declaration or Author's Agreement during submission.

4. Similarity Screening Procedures
IJIERM uses Turnitin or an equivalent text-similarity detection system as part of its editorial quality-control procedures. Manuscripts are normally screened before external peer review. Additional screening may be conducted after major revision or before final publication where necessary. In accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines, an overall similarity index of 25% is used as an initial screening threshold. However, the similarity percentage is an indicator of textual overlap and must not be treated as automatic proof of plagiarism or originality. The responsible editor evaluates:

1. The overall similarity score.
2. The extent of overlap with individual sources.
3. The location and nature of overlapping passages.
4. The presence and accuracy of citations and quotation marks.
5. Whether the overlap involves original ideas, data, findings, or distinctive scholarly arguments.
6. The extent of overlap with the authors' previously published work.
7. Whether the material comes from a disclosed preprint, thesis, dissertation, or related source.
8. Whether the overlap affects the manuscript's originality, credibility, or scientific contribution.

Reference lists, properly quoted material, standard terminology, and other legitimate overlaps may require contextual consideration. A score below 25% does not guarantee that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. Likewise, a score above 25% does not automatically establish plagiarism. The editorial team may request an explanation, correction, or revised manuscript when potentially problematic overlap is identified.

5. Classification of Plagiarism and Editorial Actions
IJIERM applies proportionate editorial responses based on the seriousness, nature, extent, and supporting evidence of the identified problem.

5.1. Minor Attribution or Textual Problems
This category includes limited unattributed wording, incomplete citations, or isolated paraphrasing problems that do not involve substantial misappropriation of original research ideas or findings.Possible editorial actions include:

• Requesting accurate citation or quotation.
• Requiring substantive rewriting.
• Requesting clarification or supporting evidence.
• Repeating the similarity screening after revision.

The manuscript may continue through editorial evaluation after the problem has been adequately resolved.

5.2. Substantial Plagiarism
This category includes significant unattributed reproduction of another person's scholarly writing, original ideas, data, or research findings. Possible editorial actions include:

• Suspending the review process while the concern is assessed.
• Requesting a written explanation from the corresponding author.
• Examining the relevant sources and supporting evidence.
• Rejecting the manuscript when substantial plagiarism is established.
• Referring serious or unresolved concerns to the authors' institution or another appropriate body where warranted.

5.3. Serious or Repeated Integrity Violations
This category includes extensive plagiarism, deliberate misrepresentation of intellectual contributions, systematic appropriation of research content, or repeated submission of manuscripts containing serious ethical violations. Possible editorial actions include rejection, institutional notification, or additional measures permitted by the journal's established policies.

Any restriction on future submissions must be based on a documented, proportionate, and independently reviewable editorial decision rather than an automatic penalty applied solely on the basis of a similarity score. Responsibility must be assessed fairly. The journal does not automatically presume that every co-author was personally involved in an alleged violation.

Suspected Plagiarism in Submitted Manuscripts
When possible plagiarism is identified before publication, IJIERM applies the following procedure:

1. The editor records the concern and obtains relevant documentary evidence.
2. The editor examines the nature and extent of the suspected plagiarism.
3. The corresponding author is informed of the substantive concern and, where appropriate, provided with the relevant evidence.
4. The authors are given a reasonable opportunity to respond and provide clarification or supporting documentation.
5. The editor assesses the explanation and may consult an independent expert where necessary.
6. The manuscript may be returned for revision, rejected, or allowed to proceed when the concern has been satisfactorily resolved.
7. Serious or unresolved concerns may be referred to the relevant research institution or appropriate authority.
8. The journal documents the decision and relevant correspondence.

The process must be conducted fairly, confidentially, and without presuming misconduct before the evidence has been assessed.

Suspected Plagiarism in Published Articles
Allegations of plagiarism identified after publication are assessed regardless of the article's publication date. The editorial team will:

1. Record the allegation and evaluate the supporting evidence.
2. Compare the published article with the relevant source material.
3. Consider the extent, nature, and significance of the overlap.
4. Contact the authors and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond.
5. Request additional evidence or consult relevant institutions where necessary.
6. Determine whether the problem requires correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate response.
7. Publish any necessary editorial notice and update the relevant publication record.

The discovery of plagiarism after publication does not automatically result in retraction. The appropriate action depends on the seriousness of the plagiarism and its implications for the integrity and reliability of the published article.

8. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication
Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Authors must disclose related publications, manuscripts under consideration elsewhere, preprints, conference papers, theses, dissertations, and other materials that substantially overlap with the submitted work. The journal evaluates potential redundancy by examining the extent of overlapping research questions, datasets, methods, analyses, findings, and conclusions. Legitimate extensions of previously disseminated work may be considered when the relationship to the earlier material is transparently disclosed and the new manuscript makes a meaningful scholarly contribution. Undisclosed duplicate or redundant publication may result in rejection or post-publication action.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Plagiarism
The use of artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies does not remove the authors' obligations concerning originality, attribution, accuracy, and research integrity. Authors must disclose substantive AI assistance as required by the journal's Author Guidelines. AI-generated or AI-assisted content must not be used to disguise plagiarism, fabricate references, reproduce protected material without authorization, or misrepresent the origin of research data and scholarly arguments. Editors assess concerns relating to AI-assisted plagiarism or inappropriate content reuse based on documentary evidence rather than unsupported assumptions derived from automated detection scores.

10. Appeals Concerning Plagiarism Decisions
Authors may request reconsideration of a plagiarism-related editorial decision when they can provide material new evidence, identify a significant factual error, or demonstrate a serious procedural concern. Appeals must be submitted through the journal's official communication channels and include a clear explanation with supporting documentation. Where practicable, an appeal should be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the original disputed decision. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

11. General Principles
IJIERM is committed to maintaining an accurate, reliable, and transparent scholarly record. When errors or credible concerns about published research arise, the journal evaluates the available evidence and takes appropriate action according to the nature, seriousness, and implications of the problem. Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are mechanisms for informing readers and protecting the integrity of scholarly communication.

Their primary purpose is to correct and preserve the scholarly record, not to punish authors.
A retraction does not necessarily imply deliberate misconduct. Significant honest errors may also require retraction when they render the published findings or conclusions unreliable. This policy is informed by the COPE Retraction Guidelines, including the version reviewed in August 2025, and other applicable COPE guidance.

12. Reporting Errors or Publication Integrity Concerns
Authors who identify significant errors in their published work must promptly notify the IJIERM Editorial Office. Readers, reviewers, researchers, institutions, and other interested parties may also report credible concerns about published articles. Reports should be submitted through the journal's official contact channels and should include, where available:

1. The article title, author names, DOI, or permanent article URL.
2. A clear explanation of the error or concern.
3. The affected passages, data, figures, tables, references, or other materials.
4. Supporting evidence or relevant source documents.
5. Any proposed correction or additional clarification.
6. Relevant competing interests of the person reporting the concern.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. There is no fixed time limit for reporting substantive concerns about the reliability or integrity of published research.

13. Corrections
A correction is appropriate when a published article contains a significant error affecting accuracy, attribution, presentation, or interpretation, but its principal findings and overall conclusions remain reliable. Corrections may address errors introduced by authors or during editorial and production processes. Examples include:

1. Incorrect numerical values that do not invalidate the study.
2. Errors in tables, figures, captions, or labels.
3. Inaccurate or incomplete quotations and references.
4. Materially incorrect author information or justified attribution changes.
5. Omitted or inaccurate funding or conflict-of-interest declarations.
6. Production errors that materially affect the meaning or discoverability of the article.
7. Other correctable inaccuracies that do not undermine the reliability of the principal conclusions.

A formal correction notice should:

• Identify the affected article and its DOI.
• Clearly explain the error.
• Present the corrected information.
• State whether the correction affects the findings or conclusions.
• Be dated and linked to the original publication.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning, attribution, discoverability, or interpretation may be corrected without a separate formal notice where appropriate.

Substantive changes must not be made silently.

14. Expressions of Concern
An expression of concern may be issued when credible and significant questions about a published article remain unresolved and readers need to be informed. This may be appropriate when:

1. Evidence raises substantial concerns but is insufficient for a definitive editorial decision.
2. A relevant investigation is ongoing and may not be completed promptly.
3. Available information raises serious questions about the integrity of the research.
4. The fairness, completeness, or reliability of an external investigation remains uncertain.

An expression of concern must describe the issue factually and proportionately without presenting unverified allegations as established misconduct. It does not, by itself, constitute a finding of research misconduct. The notice should be publicly accessible, linked to the relevant article, and updated when sufficient evidence becomes available. Possible subsequent outcomes include correction, retraction, or a public notice explaining the resolution of the concern.

15. Retractions
A retraction may be appropriate when sufficiently established problems render the published article unreliable or seriously compromise the integrity of its publication, and a correction would not adequately resolve the problem. Grounds for retraction may include:

1. Unreliable findings resulting from fabricated or falsified data.
2. Substantial plagiarism or misappropriation of research content.
3. Serious methodological or analytical errors that invalidate principal conclusions.
4. Redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate disclosure or justification.
5. Serious violations of research ethics or participant protection.
6. Compromised, fraudulent, or manipulated peer review.
7. Unauthorized use of research materials that cannot be adequately resolved through correction.
8. Other serious integrity concerns that fundamentally undermine the reliability of the publication.

A substantial honest error may justify retraction even when no research misconduct is established. Conversely, an authorship dispute, a missing disclosure, or scholarly disagreement with an article's conclusions does not automatically justify retraction. Authors may request a retraction and explain the reasons for their request. However, the final decision rests with the journal's independent editorial assessment. A retraction may proceed without unanimous author agreement when the evidence warrants corrective action.

16. Assessment and Editorial Decision-Making
Concerns about published work must be assessed by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest. The journal normally follows these procedures:

1. Receive and document the concern.
2. Conduct a preliminary examination of the supporting evidence.
3. Identify potential editorial conflicts of interest.
4. Contact the authors and explain the substantive concerns.
5. Give the affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond.
6. Request original research records or other supporting materials where necessary.
7. Seek independent expert advice or institutional clarification when appropriate.
8. Evaluate the reliability of the article and determine proportionate editorial action.
9. Communicate the decision and publish any necessary notice.
10. Maintain a confidential record of the assessment and relevant correspondence.

Requests for information must respect legitimate restrictions concerning participant confidentiality, personal data, and research ethics. Formal investigations into individual misconduct may be referred to the relevant institutions. The journal nevertheless retains responsibility for decisions concerning its published scholarly record. Failure to respond to an inquiry is not, by itself, proof of misconduct. However, an editorial decision may be made using the available evidence when sufficient grounds exist. If the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the publisher should arrange independent editorial handling.

17. Publication of Correction and Retraction Notices
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices must be clearly identified, publicly accessible, dated, and linked to the affected publication. A retraction notice should identify:

1. The title and DOI or other identifying details of the affected article.
2. The party issuing the retraction.
3. The reasons for the retraction.
4. The nature of the evidence supporting the editorial decision.
5. The authors' agreement or disagreement when known and relevant.

Notices must use factual, neutral, and proportionate language. The journal should avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential information, private correspondence, or sensitive personal data. Relevant publication metadata must be updated where technically supported, and appropriate indexing, DOI-registration, dissemination, or preservation services should be supplied with updated information where applicable.

18. Preservation of the Scholarly Record
Retracted articles should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record, with clear and prominent retraction labeling. The article's landing page and available full-text versions should be linked to the retraction notice. The journal must not silently remove or replace published research for the purpose of concealing errors, misconduct concerns, or unfavorable editorial findings. When corrected versions are issued, substantive changes must be documented and linked to the corresponding notice. The publication history should remain identifiable to readers.

19. Exceptional Content Removal
Removal of published content is an exceptional measure and must be distinguished from retraction. Removal or restricted access may be considered when continued publication creates a serious legal, privacy, or safety concern. Examples may include:

• A binding legal requirement.
• A serious risk to the privacy or safety of research participants.
• Disclosure of confidential information that cannot be adequately addressed through less restrictive measures.

Any restriction should be limited to what is necessary. Where possible, the bibliographic record should remain accessible with an explanation of the restriction. Published material must not be removed merely to avoid criticism, conceal editorial mistakes, or suppress unfavorable research findings.

20. Appeals and New Evidence
Authors and other affected parties may request reconsideration of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction decision when they provide significant new evidence, identify a material factual error, or raise a credible concern regarding procedural fairness. Appeals should be submitted through the journal's official contact channels with a clear explanation and supporting documentation. Where practicable, appeals should be reviewed by an independent editor or adviser who was not involved in the original disputed decision. An appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary public notice. When new evidence materially changes the journal's assessment, an explanatory update should be published and linked to the existing record.

21. Coordination With Other Ethical Policies
This policy should be read together with the following IJIERM policies:

• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
• Author Guidelines.
• Peer Review Process.
• Authorship and Contributorship Policy.
• Conflicts of Interest Policy.
• Open Access Policy.
• Copyright and Licensing Policy.
• Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections Policy, where applicable.

Where an allegation raises concerns about authorship, data integrity, informed consent, conflicts of interest, or peer review manipulation, the editorial team may apply other relevant journal policies in addition to this policy.

22. Commitment to Publication Integrity
IJIERM is committed to promoting responsible scholarly publication through originality screening, transparent editorial decision-making, fair assessment of research integrity concerns, and appropriate post-publication corrective procedures. The journal recognizes that maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record is a shared responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, research institutions, and readers.

IJIERM is committed to addressing plagiarism and publication integrity concerns fairly, consistently, transparently, and in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.