Plagiarism Policy

The journal requires a clear distinction between an author’s own scholarly contribution and material drawn from other researchers. This policy defines plagiarism, attribution and reuse requirements, assessment of textual matches and grounds for editorial action.

01. Definition and scope

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, findings, images, code or other substantial material as one’s own without adequate acknowledgement of its source and authorship. It may involve verbatim copying, translation or paraphrasing; absence of matching text does not exclude appropriation of a scholarly contribution.

In “Irrigation and Melioration”, these requirements cover the main text, abstracts, tables, figures, appendices, supplementary files and special-issue content, before and after publication. Editors and reviewers must also respect authorship and must not appropriate information obtained while handling a manuscript.

Matching words do not themselves establish plagiarism. Accepted terminology, standard notation, properly presented quotations and necessary descriptions of established methods are assessed in context. Screening aims to establish accurate provenance and the new contribution, not a formally low similarity score.

02. Forms of improper borrowing

  • Copying a passage without quotation marking and a citation, including where the source appears only in the general reference list.
  • Assembling passages from several sources or making superficial word substitutions that retain another author’s expression and presentation without appropriate attribution.
  • Translating another person’s text or paraphrasing an original idea, method or result without acknowledging the source.
  • Presenting another person’s measurements, images, maps, tables, software code or analytical results as one’s own; changing presentation does not make the material new.
  • Using unpublished manuscripts, reports, proposals, reviews or other confidential information without appropriate permission and acknowledgement.

For example, changing column headings does not turn someone else’s field-trial table into one’s own data, and redrawing a borrowed irrigation-system diagram does not make it an original figure. Acceptable adaptation depends on transparent attribution, reuse rights and the contribution claimed.

03. Using sources correctly

Verbatim wording is marked with quotation marks or as a block quotation and accompanied by a precise citation, including a page where appropriate. Paraphrasing requires independent wording, preservation of meaning and citation close to the relevant claim. A citation at the end of a long section must not leave the extent of borrowed material unclear.

Captions for reproduced or adapted figures and tables identify the source and nature of reuse; data and code include available identifiers and provenance. Permission or an open licence does not remove attribution requirements, and a citation does not replace necessary permission. Detailed reuse conditions follow the Copyright and Licensing Policy.

Authors check that sources exist and support the statements made. A primary work not consulted must not be cited as though checked directly: reliance on a secondary source is identified. Invented or irrelevant references do not remedy borrowing. Terminology, formulae and standard expressions need no artificial rewording; an original method or finding requires acknowledgement of its source.

04. Reusing one’s own text and results

Reusing one’s own text differs from appropriating another person’s work but can still mislead readers. Authors disclose significant overlap with their previous work and cite it. Co-authorship of an earlier paper does not remove the need to acknowledge the other authors’ contributions or comply with reuse conditions.

Limited repetition of necessary methods wording may be acceptable where the method is genuinely the same, the previous work is cited, rights are respected and differences between studies are not concealed. Repeated results or conclusions receive closer scrutiny because they may falsely suggest a new study. Self-citation does not justify mechanical duplication of extensive passages.

Presenting the same data or conclusions again as new raises a redundant-publication concern. Several papers using one sample can be considered where they address distinct scholarly questions, provide substantially different analyses, cross-reference related work and disclose their shared basis. Artificial fragmentation of one result without sufficient independent contribution is not permitted.

05. Preprints, theses, conferences and translations

Work previously shared by its authors as a preprint, a thesis in a repository or a short conference abstract may be considered. At submission, authors disclose the earlier version, supply a link or copy and explain its relationship to the manuscript. Matching such a disclosed version of their own work is not itself plagiarism and does not guarantee acceptance.

A full paper in a journal or conference proceedings counts as a previous publication, not simply an abstract. A new manuscript based on it must make a substantial independent contribution, clearly identify previously published material and respect reuse rights. Added length, rearranged sections or a different language alone do not establish novelty.

A translation of an already published article is not accepted as a new original article. An undisclosed translation of someone else’s work raises possible plagiarism; an undisclosed translation of one’s own published work raises possible redundant publication. Related manuscripts, including those under consideration elsewhere, must be disclosed; the same work must not be submitted simultaneously to several journals.

06. Screening arrangements

Every manuscript undergoes editorial assessment of attribution and borrowing during initial screening. Checks are repeated before acceptance when revisions are substantial or new concerns arise; published content is assessed when a specific concern is received. Methods include reading and source comparison, searching available publications and, where suitable access is available, text-comparison tools.

The journal records the version checked, date, identified sources and assessment outcome. Where a software report is used, the system, material settings and exclusions needed to interpret the result are recorded. A competent editor assesses the content and decides; an automated report or author-supplied certificate does not replace editorial checking.

An unpublished manuscript is sent to an external service only under acceptable confidentiality, access and retention conditions. Uploading it to publicly accessible tools that permit uncontrolled disclosure is not allowed. Database and cross-language coverage limitations are considered; failure to find a match does not guarantee originality.

07. Interpreting a similarity score

The journal does not set a single similarity percentage that automatically permits or prevents publication. A high score may include proper quotations or the author’s preprint, while a low score may conceal appropriation of a key finding. The score is not described as a “percentage of plagiarism”.

Specific matches and their sources are examined first. Excluding references, quotations or small matches can refine the analysis if justified and recorded. Excluded passages are still assessed where concerns arise; settings must not be selected to produce a desired number.

Scores can differ across systems and manuscript versions because of database coverage, text length and settings. Deliberate character substitution, hidden elements, converting text to images or other attempts to obstruct checking are assessed as possible manipulation under the misconduct policy. Translation and AI tools do not remove the author’s responsibility to acknowledge actual sources.

08. Criteria for substantive assessment

  • What overlaps: conventional wording, an original idea, a method, data, an illustration or a key conclusion.
  • Where the passage occurs and its importance to the claimed novelty and independent contribution.
  • The extent and pattern: an isolated attribution defect, sustained copying or accumulated borrowing from multiple sources.
  • Whether there is a precise citation, quotation or adaptation label, disclosure of an earlier version and the necessary reuse rights.
  • The material’s provenance, version history and participants’ explanations, and whether the source can be independently verified.

A document’s first online appearance or appearance in a similarity report need not be its creation date. Where provenance is disputed, available versions and evidence are examined; the first address found by a system is not automatically treated as the original source. Images, data, code and translated texts may require separate expert assessment.

09. Action when a problem is identified

Before publication, a limited citation defect without appropriation of data or a substantial contribution may be addressed by requesting precise attribution, proper quotation or revision and checking the amendment. Cosmetic word substitution to reduce similarity does not resolve a provenance problem.

Substantiated indications of substantial plagiarism or undisclosed redundancy may lead to a pause. Evidence, explanations and any rejection decision are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy. Adding a citation after detection does not guarantee continued consideration where the work lacks an independent contribution or another person’s finding was presented as the authors’ own.

After publication, a limited remediable defect may require a linked correction. Substantial plagiarism or redundant publication may warrant retraction even where the calculations themselves are correct; action depends on the appropriation and distortion of the scholarly record. An expression of concern may be considered for serious unresolved concerns. Notices and subsequent updates follow the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Updates Policy.

10. Reporting, reconsideration and application

Report possible borrowing through OJS or to i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz, identifying the disputed article, suspected source and specific passages or materials for comparison. Substantive anonymous reports are also assessed. Explanations, participant protection and institutional cooperation follow the misconduct policy; response timelines and independent reconsideration follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Editorial records retain decision grounds, comparisons and amended versions. Assessment materials are handled confidentially and are not automatically published. Authors may provide provenance evidence or identify comparison errors; a numerical report alone does not establish intent.

The policy applies after approval and official posting. Assessment of an earlier publication records its actual date and does not imply a check that never occurred. Detailed authorship, AI, licensing and research-data requirements appear in their respective policies.

Guidance

The policy considers DOAJ transparency principles, COPE guidance on plagiarism and text recycling, and Crossref guidance on interpreting similarity reports. Conditions for considering earlier versions and arrangements for screening below are the journal’s own rules.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)