Plagiarism Policy

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality

Publisher: Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

1. Purpose and Scope

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality is committed to promoting originality, academic honesty, responsible citation practices, and the integrity of scholarly communication.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, deliberate misrepresentation of intellectual contributions, or inappropriate reuse of previously published material.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures for preventing, identifying, assessing, and addressing plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to or published by ARISTHA.

The policy applies to all manuscript types considered by the journal, including empirical research, conceptual studies, legal analyses, literature reviews, and interdisciplinary scholarship.

Its implementation is guided by established principles of publication ethics, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, interpretations, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism may occur regardless of whether the original material is published or unpublished.

Examples include:

Copying text from another source without appropriate quotation or citation.
Closely paraphrasing another author's work without proper acknowledgment.
Using another researcher's ideas, theoretical framework, findings, or interpretations without attribution.
Reproducing tables, figures, images, or other materials without required acknowledgment or permission.
Presenting another person's research data or analysis as original work.
Using translated material without acknowledging the original source.
Incorporating substantial material from unpublished theses, reports, manuscripts, or other works without appropriate citation.

Plagiarism may arise through intentional misconduct or inadequate scholarly practices. The journal evaluates the available evidence and relevant circumstances before determining an appropriate editorial response.

3. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

ARISTHA requires authors to disclose and appropriately cite their relevant previous publications.

Self-plagiarism or inappropriate text recycling may occur when authors reuse substantial portions of their previously disseminated work without adequate acknowledgment or transparency.

Examples include:

Republishing substantially the same article as a new scholarly contribution.
Reusing significant sections of previous publications without appropriate citation.
Presenting previously published findings as entirely new results.
Dividing a single research project into multiple misleadingly fragmented publications.
Submitting substantially overlapping manuscripts to different journals without disclosure.

Limited reuse of standardized methodological descriptions may be acceptable when appropriately attributed and when it does not misrepresent the originality of the work.

Prior dissemination through a thesis, dissertation, preprint, conference presentation, or institutional repository does not automatically constitute plagiarism. Authors must disclose relevant prior dissemination, and the editor will assess the circumstances in accordance with the journal's applicable publication policies.

4. Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting manuscripts to ARISTHA are responsible for ensuring the originality and integrity of their work.

Authors must:

Submit manuscripts that represent genuine scholarly contributions.
Acknowledge all relevant sources accurately.
Use quotation marks or appropriate formatting for direct quotations.
Paraphrase sources through genuine scholarly interpretation rather than superficial wording changes.
Cite previously published work, including relevant publications by the same authors.
Obtain permissions when required for copyrighted materials.
Disclose substantial overlap with earlier manuscripts or publications.
Verify the authenticity of references and quotations.
Ensure that generative AI tools have not introduced plagiarized content or fabricated citations.
Respond appropriately to editorial requests concerning originality or source attribution.

All listed authors share responsibility for the integrity of the submitted manuscript.

5. Similarity Screening

ARISTHA may conduct textual similarity screening as part of the initial editorial assessment and, where appropriate, during revision or post-publication evaluation.

Similarity screening may be supported by recognized tools, such as Turnitin or iThenticate, where available.

Similarity reports are used as supporting evidence to identify textual overlap that may require further examination.

A similarity score does not, by itself, establish plagiarism.

Editors should examine the sources and nature of matching material, including:

Properly quoted and cited passages.
Reference lists and bibliographic entries.
Standard academic terminology.
Commonly used methodological expressions.
Overlap with the authors' previously disseminated work.
Unattributed copying or inappropriate paraphrasing.
Substantial duplication of research findings or interpretation.

Similarity assessment must therefore combine technological assistance with informed human editorial judgment.

6. Similarity Threshold and Editorial Interpretation

As an operational screening standard, ARISTHA adopts a maximum overall similarity index of 20%, subject to appropriate editorial interpretation.

The similarity index should be calculated using a consistently documented screening configuration. Where supported by the screening software, the editorial team may exclude bibliographies, appropriately quoted material, and insignificant matches from the screening calculation.

A manuscript with a similarity index above 20% may be returned for clarification or revision, or subjected to additional editorial examination.

A manuscript with a similarity index of 20% or below is not automatically considered free from plagiarism.

Even a low similarity score may conceal serious plagiarism involving distinctive passages, research ideas, data, figures, or other intellectual contributions.

Conversely, a higher score may reflect legitimate overlap that does not constitute misconduct.

The final editorial assessment must consider the extent, nature, attribution, and scholarly significance of the overlapping material.

7. Plagiarism Screening During Initial Editorial Assessment

During the initial screening stage, the editor evaluates the manuscript's originality and compliance with publication ethics requirements.

When significant textual overlap is identified, the editor may:

Examine the relevant similarity matches.
Request clarification from the corresponding author.
Ask the authors to improve citations or paraphrasing.
Require revision of problematic passages.
Request supporting documentation concerning prior dissemination.
Decline the manuscript when serious plagiarism is substantiated.

Manuscripts should not be rejected solely on the basis of an automated similarity percentage without appropriate contextual examination.

8. Plagiarism Identified During Peer Review

Peer reviewers may identify potential plagiarism, inadequate attribution, redundant publication, or suspicious similarity that was not detected during initial screening.

Reviewers should report such concerns confidentially to the handling editor and provide relevant supporting information.

Reviewers should not independently contact the authors or publicly disclose allegations concerning an unpublished manuscript.

The editor will assess the concern and determine whether further clarification, additional screening, revision, or other action is warranted.

Plagiarism-related concerns must be handled consistently with the journal's double-anonymous peer review procedures and confidentiality obligations.

9. Assessment of Suspected Plagiarism

When a credible concern is raised, the editorial team should conduct a fair, proportionate, and evidence-based assessment.

The assessment may involve:

Identifying the allegedly copied or improperly reused material.
Comparing the manuscript with the relevant original sources.
Evaluating whether attribution, quotation, or permission is adequate.
Assessing the extent and significance of the overlap.
Considering whether the overlap affects the manuscript's originality or scholarly contribution.
Requesting an explanation from the authors when appropriate.
Seeking independent advice or institutional involvement in complex or serious cases.

Authors should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before consequential editorial action is taken.

10. Editorial Actions Before Publication

Where plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse is identified before publication, possible editorial actions include:

Requesting corrections to citations or quotations.
Requiring substantive rewriting or revision.
Requesting clarification or supporting documentation.
Suspending consideration while significant concerns are assessed.
Declining the manuscript when serious plagiarism is substantiated.
Referring serious concerns to a relevant institution when appropriate.

The selected action should reflect the seriousness of the issue and its implications for research integrity.

Minor citation errors should be distinguished from substantial misappropriation of intellectual contributions.

11. Plagiarism Identified After Publication

ARISTHA recognizes that concerns about plagiarism may arise after an article has been published.

When credible evidence is presented, the editorial team should assess the matter in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics, Allegation of Misconduct, and Retraction and Correction policies.

Depending on the findings, appropriate actions may include:

Publishing a correction when limited attribution errors can be remedied without undermining the article's integrity.
Issuing an expression of concern when significant issues remain unresolved.
Retracting an article when substantial plagiarism or serious ethical violations justify retraction.
Referring the matter to a relevant institution or competent authority when appropriate.

Post-publication actions should be transparent, proportionate, and appropriately documented.

12. Plagiarism Involving Data, Tables, Figures, and Images

Plagiarism is not limited to written text.

The unauthorized or misleading use of another person's research data, analytical results, tables, diagrams, photographs, figures, or other scholarly materials may also constitute plagiarism or copyright infringement.

Authors must acknowledge the original sources and obtain necessary permissions when required.

The journal may request clarification or supporting documentation concerning the origin and permitted use of such materials.

AI-generated or AI-modified images must also comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy and applicable intellectual property requirements.

13. Plagiarism in Literature Reviews and Conceptual Studies

Literature reviews, systematic reviews, bibliometric studies, and conceptual articles must demonstrate original scholarly analysis or synthesis.

Authors must not present copied summaries, theoretical arguments, conceptual models, or interpretations from existing publications as their own contributions.

The appropriate use of established theories and previous research requires accurate citation and critical engagement with the original sources.

Similarity arising from standard terminology, titles of cited works, or accurately attributed descriptions should be evaluated in context.

14. Generative AI and Plagiarism Prevention

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted manuscript content is original, accurate, appropriately attributed, and ethically acceptable.

Generative AI tools may reproduce existing expressions, generate inaccurate source descriptions, or produce fabricated references.

Authors must independently verify AI-assisted text, citations, quotations, and scholarly claims.

The use of AI to disguise copied material, fabricate references, or misrepresent the origin of intellectual contributions is unacceptable.

Relevant concerns should be assessed in conjunction with the journal's Generative AI Policy.

15. Confidentiality and Procedural Fairness

Plagiarism allegations must be handled with appropriate confidentiality and impartiality.

Editors and reviewers should avoid making unsupported accusations or disclosing confidential manuscript information unnecessarily.

Authors should be informed of substantive concerns and given an appropriate opportunity to provide clarification or evidence.

Where an editor has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility for assessing the concern should be delegated to an appropriately independent editor.

16. Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors may request reconsideration of plagiarism-related editorial decisions when they identify a material factual error, procedural concern, or significant new evidence.

Appeals should provide a clear explanation and relevant supporting documentation.

Where practicable, an appeal should be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not automatically reverse an editorial decision.

17. Editorial Responsibility and Independence

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor is responsible for evaluating plagiarism concerns and determining appropriate editorial actions.

Automated similarity tools, reviewer comments, and external reports provide supporting information but do not replace independent editorial judgment.

Editorial decisions must be based on relevant evidence and should remain free from inappropriate personal, institutional, financial, or commercial influence.

18. Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This Plagiarism Policy should be read together with the journal's:

Editorial Decision Policy.
Publication Ethics.
Allegation of Misconduct.
Peer Review Process.
Generative AI (GenAI) Policy.
Retraction and Correction Policy.
Copyright and License Policy.

Where a concern involves multiple ethical or legal issues, the relevant policies should be applied consistently.

19. Policy Review and Updates

ARISTHA may periodically review this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, similarity-screening technology, scholarly communication, and applicable institutional requirements.

The journal remains committed to maintaining originality, transparency, procedural fairness, and the integrity of its published scholarly record.

Similarity Screening Standard: Maximum 20% overall similarity index, subject to contextual editorial evaluation.

Screening Tools: Turnitin, iThenticate, or other suitable similarity-detection tools, where available.

Automatic Acceptance Based on Similarity Score: Not permitted.

Final Assessment of Plagiarism Concerns: Human editorial judgment based on evidence and publication ethics principles.