Screening for Similarity

Fokus Bisnis: Media Pengkajian Manajemen dan Akuntansi (FOKBIS) is committed to maintaining originality, proper attribution, and academic integrity in all manuscripts considered for publication. Authors are expected to submit original scholarly work and to acknowledge appropriately all ideas, words, data, figures, and other materials derived from existing sources.

FOKBIS does not tolerate plagiarism, including the unattributed use of another person's work or the inappropriate reuse of previously published material. Manuscripts therefore undergo similarity screening as part of the journal's editorial evaluation.

Similarity screening is used as an editorial tool to identify textual overlap that may require further examination. A similarity percentage alone is not treated as conclusive evidence of plagiarism. Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team by considering the source, extent, pattern, and context of the detected overlap.

Similarity Screening

Manuscripts submitted to FOKBIS are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin. Similarity screening is normally conducted during the initial editorial assessment and may be repeated when necessary during the editorial process.

A manuscript with an overall similarity index above 20% may be returned to the author for revision or may be declined when the detected overlap indicates substantial concerns regarding originality or publication ethics.

Conversely, a similarity index of 20% or below does not automatically establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. A manuscript with a relatively low overall similarity score may still require editorial action when substantial unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, or problematic overlap with a particular source is identified.

Interpretation of Similarity Reports

Similarity reports are evaluated contextually rather than solely on the basis of the numerical similarity index. The editorial assessment may consider:

• the amount and concentration of overlap with individual sources;
• whether the original source has been appropriately acknowledged;
• whether overlapping text has been quoted or paraphrased appropriately;
• the location and function of overlapping material within the manuscript;
• whether the overlap involves ideas, findings, data, tables, figures, or distinctive expressions;
• possible overlap with the authors' own previously published work; and
• the overall pattern of textual similarity throughout the manuscript.

Bibliographic references, properly presented quotations, commonly used terminology, names of institutions, standard methodological expressions, and other legitimate textual similarities may be considered by the editorial team when interpreting the similarity report.

Plagiarism and Inappropriate Textual Overlap

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's intellectual contribution as one's own or using material from another source without appropriate acknowledgement. It may involve words, ideas, arguments, data, results, figures, tables, methods, or other scholarly material.

Inappropriate practices may include:

• copying text from another source without appropriate citation or quotation;
• closely paraphrasing another source while presenting its ideas or language as original work;
• using another person's data, figures, tables, or other material without proper acknowledgement or permission where required;
• presenting another person's ideas, arguments, or findings as the author's own;
• reusing substantial portions of previously published material without appropriate disclosure; and
• attempting to conceal textual overlap through superficial rewriting or inappropriate paraphrasing.

Text Recycling and Previous Work

Authors should appropriately cite and disclose their relevant previous work. Reuse of substantial portions of previously published text, data, figures, analyses, or findings without appropriate acknowledgement may constitute inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, or another publication ethics concern.

Where a manuscript develops from a thesis, dissertation, conference paper, working paper, report, preprint, or another earlier version of the work, authors should disclose the relationship where relevant and appropriately identify material that has previously been disseminated.

Responsible Paraphrasing

Authors should not treat similarity screening merely as a numerical requirement. Replacing words, rearranging sentences, or using automated paraphrasing solely to reduce a similarity score does not necessarily constitute responsible scholarly writing.

Appropriate paraphrasing requires authors to understand the original source, express the relevant idea accurately in their own scholarly language, and provide proper citation whenever the idea or information originates from another work.

Editorial Action

When problematic similarity or suspected plagiarism is identified, the editorial team considers the nature, extent, context, and seriousness of the issue before determining an appropriate response.

Depending on the circumstances, editorial action may include:

• requesting clarification from the author;
• requesting appropriate citation, quotation, or paraphrasing;
• returning the manuscript for revision and repeat similarity screening;
• declining the manuscript during initial editorial screening;
• rejecting the manuscript during the editorial process;
• investigating possible duplicate or redundant publication; or
• taking appropriate post-publication action when plagiarism is identified after publication.

Serious or repeated cases may be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and other relevant procedures for protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

Author Responsibility

Authors remain responsible for the originality and integrity of their manuscripts. Meeting the journal's similarity threshold does not remove the author's obligation to provide accurate citations, appropriate attribution, responsible paraphrasing, and lawful use of copyrighted or previously published material.

When revision is required, authors should address the underlying problematic overlap rather than attempting only to reduce the numerical similarity score.