Original work presents scholarly content — text, data, figures, code, or ideas — with honest representation of what is new and what is derived from prior sources.

Attribution is the explicit identification of sources through citations, quotations, acknowledgements, and contributor roles so readers can trace intellectual lineage.

Plagiarism is the use of another party's work, expression, or ideas without appropriate attribution, permission, or license, presented as if it were the author's own.

Self-plagiarism is the reuse of one's own prior published work without disclosure where readers would reasonably expect new material or explicit cross-reference.

Duplicate publication is the publication of substantially overlapping work in multiple venues without clear disclosure, wasting editorial resources and distorting the literature.

Integrity requires that authors submit work that accurately represents their contributions. Honesty requires disclosure of prior publication, overlapping submissions, and material reuse. Transparency requires visible citations, acknowledgements, and AI disclosures where applicable.

Originality does not mean that all prior literature is ignored — it means that prior work is credited and new contributions are clearly identified. Accountability assigns responsibility to authors for everything submitted under their names. Fair attribution ensures that all who merit credit receive it and that those who do not are not listed.

Authors must verify that manuscripts do not incorporate unattributed text, figures, tables, data, or code from other sources. Quotations must be clearly marked and cited. Paraphrases must credit original sources.

Acknowledgements must credit funding, facilities, software, data providers, and individuals who contributed but do not meet authorship criteria. Reuse of the author's own prior work requires citation and disclosure when overlap is substantial.

Permissions must be obtained for copyrighted third-party materials. Authors warrant that co-authors consent to submission and that the work has not been published elsewhere in a form that constitutes duplicate publication without disclosure.

Direct plagiarism copies text verbatim without quotation marks and citation. Mosaic plagiarism weaves phrases from sources into new prose without attribution. Paraphrasing plagiarism restates another's ideas or structure without credit.

Translation plagiarism translates published work without acknowledging the source. Figure, table, image, dataset, and software plagiarism reproduce visual or computational outputs without permission or citation. Idea plagiarism presents another's hypotheses, methods, or interpretive frameworks as original without credit.

Self-plagiarism recycles substantial published passages, data presentations, or arguments in new manuscripts without disclosure. Each form may trigger revision, rejection, retraction, or sanctions depending on severity and intent.

Duplicate submission occurs when the same manuscript is simultaneously under review at multiple venues without disclosure. Duplicate publication republishes substantially the same work in another journal or platform. Redundant publication overlaps prior work without adding meaningful new insight.

Salami publication slices one study into minimal publishable units to inflate publication counts, fragmenting coherent findings and misleading readers about the extent of distinct research.

Permissible exceptions include explicit cross-publication of abstracts, translated versions with disclosure, extended analyses clearly labeled as follow-ups, and preprint-to-journal pipelines declared at submission.

Ghost authorship omits individuals who made substantial contributions, often to hide industry or undeclared writer involvement. Guest authorship lists honorary authors without meaningful contribution. Gift authorship adds influential names to improve perceived prestige.

CRediT-style contributor roles — conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, writing, supervision, funding — promote transparency when authors document who did what. All listed authors must approve the final manuscript and accept accountability.

Authorship disputes are resolved through author correspondence, institutional policies, and editorial escalation when integrity is implicated.

Appropriate citation credits prior work that informed methods, context, or interpretation. Citation manipulation inflates metrics by including irrelevant references, often at editor or reviewer request. Citation cartels coordinate mutual citation rings to distort impact measures.

Reference accuracy requires that cited works exist, say what authors claim they say, and match the specified version. Fabricated or hallucinated references — including AI-generated citations to non-existent papers — are serious misconduct.

Editors and reviewers must not demand citations solely to benefit themselves or associates without scholarly justification.

AI-generated text, images, or data presented as original empirical work without disclosure violates authenticity standards. AI-assisted writing that reproduces copyrighted training material without attribution may constitute plagiarism.

Authors must verify that AI-suggested references exist and accurately support claims. Hallucinated citations are a form of reference fabrication. Human accountability remains with authors under the Responsible AI in Research & Scientific Publishing Charter.

Reviewers and editors may use AI only in ways consistent with confidentiality and integrity policies; AI must not generate fake peer reviews.

Editors and reviewers assess whether overlap reports, reader allegations, or internal checks raise credible authenticity questions. Automated similarity tools assist but do not replace expert interpretation of context, methods, and discipline norms.

Evidence may include source documents, similarity reports, author explanations, and institutional investigations. Authors receive opportunity to respond before adverse decisions where practicable.

All significant originality decisions are documented with rationale, evidence summary, and notices issued.

Authors may explain legitimate reuse under license, common knowledge exceptions, or prior publication disclosures they believe were adequate. Supporting documentation includes permissions, data agreements, and institutional approvals.

Appeals address procedural errors, new exonerating evidence, or disproportionate sanctions — not mere disagreement with editorial standards. Good-faith clarification may resolve cases without rejection or retraction.

Authors retain rights under the Researcher Bill of Rights to fair treatment and reasoned communication.

Outcomes may include requests for clarification or additional attribution; revision to add citations or permissions; correction of published attribution errors; rejection of submitted manuscripts; withdrawal of published work; retraction when misconduct or unreliability is confirmed; and account restrictions for repeat or egregious violations.

Minor citation gaps may require correction; deliberate plagiarism typically warrants rejection or retraction. Appeals follow the Corrections, Retractions & Publication Integrity Charter.

Sanctions escalate for repeat offenders and coordinated misconduct such as paper mill submissions.

Education reduces unintentional violations. Publication requirements, reporting guidelines, and governance documents explain citation norms, self-citation disclosure, authorship criteria, and AI disclosure.

Editorial feedback on revision requests teaches authors how to remedy attribution gaps. Institutions may use Inquisra resources in research integrity training.

Education does not excuse deliberate misconduct but strengthens community standards.

The Platform investigates authenticity concerns without favoritism toward prestigious authors or institutions. Due process includes notice, evidence review, and appeals. Communication remains professional even in misconduct cases.

Objective evaluation relies on documented evidence, not rumor. Genuine scholarship — including work from emerging researchers and non-traditional institutions — receives equal protection from appropriation and false allegations.

Inquisra will refine originality tools and policies as publishing practices and threats such as paper mills evolve.