Plagiarism/Ethics Statement

UAPM Journal of Respiratory Diseases and Allied Sciences

Official Publication of the United Academy of Pulmonary Medicine

 

Plagiarism and Publication Ethics Statement

Policy Document | Effective: 2024 onwards

1. Preamble

The UAPM Journal of Respiratory Diseases and Allied Sciences (hereinafter "the Journal") is committed to publishing high-quality, original, peer-reviewed research that advances knowledge in pulmonology, critical care, sleep medicine, thoracic surgery, and all allied sciences pertaining to respiratory health. Upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity is a foundational responsibility shared by the Journal's editors, authors, reviewers, and publisher.

This statement outlines the Journal's policies on plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, authorship integrity, conflicts of interest, and broader ethical obligations. All parties involved in the publication process are expected to read, understand, and adhere to these policies in full.

2. Plagiarism Policy

2.1 Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another person's work, ideas, data, text, images, or intellectual property as one's own without proper acknowledgment. The Journal adopts a broad definition consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, encompassing:

  • Verbatim copying of text without quotation marks or citation
  • Near-verbatim reproduction (paraphrasing with minimal alteration)
  • Unattributed use of figures, tables, data sets, or illustrations
  • Conceptual plagiarism — presenting another's ideas or arguments without credit
  • Self-plagiarism — reusing one's own previously published text or data without disclosure
  • Mosaic plagiarism — patching together text from multiple sources without citation

 

2.2 Screening Procedure

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subjected to plagiarism screening using industry-standard software (iThenticate / Turnitin or equivalent) prior to peer review. The Journal employs the following thresholds as initial guidelines:

  • Overall Similarity Index ≤ 15%: Manuscript proceeds to peer review
  • Similarity Index 16–25%: Editorial team reviews source overlap in detail; author may be asked to revise
  • Similarity Index > 25%: Manuscript is rejected outright unless the overlap is demonstrably from properly cited references, quotations, or common scientific terminology

 

Note: The similarity index is a starting point, not a final verdict. The editorial team evaluates the nature and context of matching content. A low similarity score does not guarantee the absence of plagiarism; the editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts where intellectual theft is suspected regardless of software results.

 

2.3 Consequences of Plagiarism

Upon detection of plagiarism — whether pre-publication or post-publication — the Journal will take action commensurate with the severity of the violation, in line with COPE flowcharts:

  • Minor overlap: Author(s) notified; revision and resubmission required with corrected attribution
  • Moderate plagiarism: Manuscript rejected; authors' institutions may be informed
  • Serious plagiarism / post-publication discovery: Article retracted with a formal retraction notice; author(s) banned from future submissions; institutional and funding body notification

 

3. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must certify that the submitted manuscript has not been published elsewhere, is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal, and does not substantially overlap with any prior publication by the same authors.

3.1 Acceptable Secondary Publication

Secondary publication may be considered acceptable under strictly defined circumstances, such as translation for a different audience or publication of clinical practice guidelines derived from a primary research paper. In all such cases, authors must:

  • Obtain explicit permission from the editor of the original journal
  • Clearly disclose the original publication at the point of submission
  • Ensure the secondary publication targets a clearly different readership

 

3.2 Salami Slicing

Dividing the results of a single study into multiple papers to artificially inflate publication volume ('salami slicing') is considered a form of research misconduct. The Journal will reject manuscripts suspected of this practice and may investigate prior publications by the same group.

4. Data Integrity and Fabrication

The Journal requires that all data presented in submitted manuscripts are accurate, complete, and honestly reported. The following constitutes serious misconduct:

  • Fabrication — inventing data or results that were not collected
  • Falsification — manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or data to produce a misleading result
  • Selective reporting — omitting inconvenient data points or outcomes without scientific justification
  • Image manipulation — adjusting figures beyond acceptable brightness/contrast corrections; splicing or cloning gel bands; misrepresenting microscopy or radiological images

 

Authors may be required to provide raw data, original laboratory notebooks, or full imaging files upon request by the editors or reviewers. Post-publication, the Journal reserves the right to issue an Expression of Concern, Correction, or Retraction upon discovery of data integrity violations.

5. Authorship and Contributorship

5.1 ICMJE Criteria

The Journal adheres to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. To qualify as an author, an individual must meet ALL four of the following conditions:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data
  • Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content
  • Final approval of the version to be published
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

 

Participation solely in funding acquisition, data collection, or general supervision does not justify authorship. Such contributors should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.

 

5.2 Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for:

  • Ensuring all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript
  • Managing all communications between the editorial office and co-authors
  • Disclosing any changes in authorship during revision and providing justification
  • Completing all required declarations including conflicts of interest and ethical approvals on behalf of all authors

 

5.3 Ghost and Gift Authorship

Ghost authorship (excluding individuals who meet ICMJE authorship criteria) and gift/guest authorship (including individuals who do not meet those criteria) are both unacceptable and constitute forms of misconduct. Any suspicion of such practices will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

 

Changes to authorship — addition, removal, or reordering — after submission require a written explanation signed by all listed authors and is subject to editorial approval.

6. Conflicts of Interest

All authors, editors, and reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial) that could influence the work or its evaluation. Conflicts include but are not limited to:

  • Employment, consultancy, or advisory roles with commercial entities related to the study
  • Stock ownership or options in relevant companies
  • Honoraria, speaker fees, or travel grants from commercial sponsors
  • Patents filed, pending, or held
  • Research funding from industry sources
  • Personal or professional relationships that could bias review decisions

 

Declarations must be submitted using the Journal's Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form at the time of submission. Failure to declare a known conflict of interest may result in rejection or retraction.

Editors and reviewers who identify a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript must recuse themselves immediately and inform the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Research Ethics and Human/Animal Subjects

7.1 Human Research

Research involving human participants must comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (current revision) and applicable national regulations. Manuscripts must state:

  • Name of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee that approved the study
  • Approval/Reference number
  • Confirmation that written informed consent was obtained from all participants (or a waiver was granted)
  • Confirmation of anonymisation/de-identification of participant data in the manuscript

 

7.2 Animal Research

Studies involving animals must adhere to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and applicable institutional animal ethics committee approvals. Authors must confirm humane treatment of animals and report the 3Rs framework (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) where applicable.

 

7.3 Clinical Trials

Clinical trials must be registered in a WHO-recognised primary registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, CTRI, ISRCTN) prior to participant enrolment. The trial registration number must be stated in the abstract and methods section. The Journal follows the CONSORT reporting checklist for clinical trial manuscripts.

 

7.4 Vulnerable Populations

Research involving vulnerable populations — including children, the elderly, cognitively impaired individuals, prisoners, or those in dependent relationships — requires explicit mention of safeguards and enhanced informed consent procedures.

8. Peer Review Ethics

The Journal operates a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and within agreed timelines
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest to the editorial office before accepting or upon identifying a conflict
  • Refrain from using unpublished information from a manuscript for personal advantage
  • Not approach or identify authors during the review process
  • Decline review invitations for manuscripts outside their area of expertise

 

Any reviewer who suspects misconduct in a manuscript under review must promptly notify the editor rather than act independently. Peer review communications are strictly confidential and must not be shared without editorial permission.

9. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

9.1 Corrections (Erratum/Corrigendum)

Minor errors that do not affect the scientific conclusions of a published article may be corrected via a formal Erratum (error introduced by the journal) or Corrigendum (error made by authors). Corrections are published online and linked to the original article.

 

9.2 Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern is issued when the editors become aware of possible misconduct or data integrity questions that have not yet been resolved, so as to alert readers while the investigation is ongoing.

 

9.3 Retractions

Retraction is the most serious editorial action and is reserved for articles where:

  • There is clear evidence of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism
  • Redundant or duplicate publication has occurred without proper disclosure
  • The ethical conduct of the research is fundamentally compromised
  • Major uncorrectable errors invalidate the conclusions

 

Retraction notices will clearly state the reason for retraction, will be permanently linked to the original article, and will comply with COPE's Retraction Guidelines. Retracted articles remain on the Journal's website marked as 'RETRACTED' with the date and reason.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

The Journal recognises the increasing use of AI-assisted writing tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot) in manuscript preparation. Authors must:

  • Disclose any use of AI tools in the Methods or Acknowledgements section, specifying the tool and nature of use
  • Acknowledge that AI tools cannot qualify as authors under ICMJE criteria; authorship remains solely the responsibility of human contributors
  • Ensure AI-generated content does not introduce inaccuracies, fabricated citations, or unattributed material
  • Accept full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all AI-assisted content

 

The Journal reserves the right to reject or retract manuscripts where undisclosed AI-generated content is identified, particularly where it constitutes a form of academic deception or contains hallucinated citations and data.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, readers, or third parties who wish to raise a complaint regarding an editorial decision, alleged misconduct, or breach of this policy may contact the Editor-in-Chief in writing. The Journal commits to:

  • Acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days
  • Investigating the matter following COPE guidelines
  • Communicating the outcome to the complainant within a reasonable timeframe
  • Escalating unresolved disputes to the journal's publisher or professional society as appropriate

 

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must submit a written rebuttal addressing specific reviewer or editorial concerns within 30 days of the decision notification.

12. Adherence to External Standards

This policy has been developed in alignment with the following internationally recognised frameworks:

  • COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) — Core Practices and Flowcharts
  • ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) — Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work
  • Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association)
  • ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments)
  • CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, and other applicable reporting guidelines
  • The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity

 

 

UAPM Journal of Respiratory Diseases and Allied Sciences  |  Plagiarism & Ethics Statement

This policy is subject to periodic review. For queries, contact: editor@uapmjrds.org