Guideline for Editors in case of a Suspected Duplicate Publication

Upon a peer reviewer's suspicion of duplication, the reviewer promptly informs the editor, who then expresses gratitude and requests the reviewer to provide written evidence of the alleged duplication.

The editor assesses the extent and nature of the duplication, categorizing it as:

Major (intolerable)

A significant portion of the text/paper is duplicated without providing a cross-reference to the original publication, merely altering names or locations.

The editor sends a written letter or email to the concerned author(s), requesting an affirmation that their text/paper is original and unpublished.

The author(s) may respond, admitting their mistake or asserting honest error, perhaps citing unawareness of journal rules or inexperience in authorship. In all cases, the editor insists the author(s) provide a cross-reference to the original publication.

If the author(s) remain silent and the duplication is extensive, the editor deems the submission unacceptable and rejects it.
In cases of continued silence from the author(s), the editor contacts the "Head of the Authors' Department" at their institution with a written letter, obtains an acknowledgment and follows up every 2-4 months.

Minor (acceptable with correction)

If the editor is convinced that it is a case of minor error, the editor contacts the concerned author(s), expressing displeasure.

The editor insists that the author(s) either remove the duplicated content or provide a cross-reference to the original publication.

Minute (negligible)

The editor contacts the concerned author(s) and recommends they supply a cross-reference for the translated or duplicated data.

Share Page Improvements
Your volunteer spirit shapes our community. For potential enhancements, just like Wikipedia, click the 'Propose Edit' button.