Similarity and Plagiarism Policy

Similarity software is a screening aid, not a decision-maker. JACR does not accept or reject a manuscript on the strength of a similarity index. An editor reads the full match report, identifies the source of each match, and classifies the finding before deciding what follows.

1. How similarity is identified

  • When. Every submission is screened during editorial assessment, before any invitation to review. A manuscript may be screened again after substantive revision, and at any time after publication if a concern is raised.
  • With what. Screening is performed with ORCA, as described on the Submission and Publication Process page.
  • By whom. The screening is run by the editorial office, and the report is read and interpreted by an editor. No automated score is given authority to decline a manuscript.
  • What the editor examines. Not the overall index, but each individual match: its source, its location in the manuscript, its length, whether it is attributed, and whether it carries scholarly substance. A high index composed of correctly cited quotations and standard method wording is not a finding; a single uncited paragraph of another author’s argument is.
  • What is excluded from interpretation. The reference list, correctly marked quotations, and standard descriptions of established techniques are discounted when the editor weighs the match report.
  • Record. The similarity report and the editor’s classification are retained in the submission record for the lifetime of the journal, and are available under Editor credentials to accreditation assessors and to any properly constituted investigation.

JACR deliberately does not publish a single percentage as a pass mark. A fixed threshold invites manipulation of wording to sit below it, and it does not distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable overlap. The classification below is what determines the outcome.

2. Classification of findings

Every match that is not plainly acceptable is assigned to one of the classes below. The class, not the index, determines the editorial response.

Class What it is How JACR responds
A
Acceptable overlap		Material that is properly quoted and cited; the reference list; standard descriptions of established methods, instruments, scales, reagents, and statistical tests; names of institutions and places; and the authors’ own disclosed preprint, thesis, protocol, or registered trial record.No action. The match is recorded as examined and accepted.
B
Inadequate attribution or close paraphrase		The source is cited, but the wording follows it too closely, or quoted wording appears without quotation marks.Revision required before further processing: the passage must be rewritten in the authors’ own words or marked as a quotation. No misconduct finding.
C
Substantial unattributed text reuse		Passages taken from another source with no citation, or with a citation that does not identify the extent of the reuse.Major revision or rejection, depending on the amount and location. Reuse in the Methods is treated differently from reuse in the Introduction or Discussion. The authors are asked to account for it.
D
Appropriation of ideas, data, images, or structure		Use of another person’s data, figures, tables, images, study design, or line of argument without attribution — including material seen in the course of peer review or examination.Rejection, and handling under the misconduct procedure. The institutions concerned are contacted.
E
Text recycling (self-plagiarism)		Reuse of the authors’ own previously published wording. Limited reuse in the Methods of a continuing programme of work can be legitimate; reuse in the Introduction, Results, or Discussion is not.Assessed case by case. The source must be cited and the reuse disclosed. Undisclosed recycling of substantive sections is treated as class C or F.
F
Duplicate or redundant publication		The same study, or a substantially overlapping dataset and analysis, already published or under consideration elsewhere, including salami-sliced reports of one dataset.Rejection. Where the article is already published, a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, as the evidence requires.
G
Citation manipulation		Citations added without scholarly justification — to inflate an author’s or a journal’s counts, or because a reviewer or editor coerced them.The citations must be removed or justified. Coercive citation by a reviewer or editor is itself misconduct and is acted on.
H
Fabricated or brokered submission		Indicators of a manuscript produced or sold by a third party: data that cannot be produced, incoherent figures, authors unable to describe their own methods, suspicious author changes, or non-institutional contact details.Rejection and notification of the stated institutions. Where published, retraction.

3. How a finding is handled

  1. The editor records the classification and the specific passages concerned.
  2. For classes B and C the corresponding author is asked to revise, to supply the source, or to explain the overlap, with a stated deadline.
  3. For classes D, F, G, and H the editor follows the applicable COPE flowchart and the procedure in the Publication Ethics policy. The journal may request the underlying data, contact the authors’ institution — which is the body competent to investigate its own researchers — and consult independent experts.
  4. The authors are given the opportunity to respond before any misconduct finding is recorded, and their response is considered on its merits.
  5. The response is proportionate to the evidence. An honest error in attribution is corrected; deliberate appropriation is not treated as an error.
  6. The outcome and its reasons are communicated to the authors in writing.

4. Concerns raised after publication

A concern about a published article is examined on the same basis, however long after publication it is raised and whether or not the person raising it is identified. Depending on the finding, JACR may publish a correction, publish an expression of concern while an institutional investigation is unresolved, or retract the article. The mechanisms are set out in Corrections, Retractions, and Post-publication Updates; scholarly disagreement about a published article, as distinct from an integrity concern, is handled under Post-publication Discussion.

Concerns should be sent to journalanesthesiology@gmail.com with the article title, DOI, and the specific passages or sources concerned.

5. What authors should do before submitting

  • Quote exactly and mark quotations, or write the point in your own words and cite the source.
  • Cite the source of every method you did not devise yourself, even where the wording is standard.
  • Disclose at submission any preprint, thesis, conference abstract, protocol, or registered record that overlaps with the manuscript, and cite it.
  • Where the work continues an earlier study by the same group, say so and cite the earlier article rather than reusing its wording.
  • Obtain written permission for figures, tables, or long quotations taken from a copyrighted source, and state the permission in the legend.
  • Verify every reference against the primary source; a citation generated by a tool and not checked is not a citation. See the AI Tools Policy.
  • Screen your own manuscript before submission if your institution provides the facility, and resolve what you find rather than rewording it to lower a score.

6. Reviewers and editors

Reviewers who recognise undisclosed overlap, duplicate publication, or appropriated material should report it confidentially to the editor rather than to the authors, and must not use the manuscript or its contents for any other purpose. Editors must not use material seen in the course of handling a submission in their own work. Both are bound by the Peer Review Policy and the Publication Ethics policy.

Read together with Publication Ethics, Authorship, Peer Review Policy, AI Tools Policy, and Corrections and Retractions. This policy follows the COPE Core Practices and the COPE guidance on text recycling.