Plagiarism Policy

The European Journal of Medical Case Reports (EJMCR), published by Discover STM Publishing Ltd, is committed to originality, proper attribution and the integrity of the scholarly record. EJMCR assesses potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse and redundant publication through editorial judgement supported by appropriate similarity screening and publication-ethics guidance.

What is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, figures, images or other intellectual contributions as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement. It includes unattributed copying, paraphrasing or use of substantial material; rewording does not remove the need to credit the source. Similarity is not automatically plagiarism when reuse is properly attributed and otherwise legitimate.

Types of Plagiarism:

Direct Plagiarism: Reproducing someone else's work word-for-word without quotation marks or proper citation.

Text recycling (sometimes called “self-plagiarism”): Reusing one’s previously published wording without appropriate disclosure or citation may be problematic, especially where it obscures duplicate findings. Limited standard methods wording is not necessarily misconduct.

Paraphrasing Plagiarism: Rewriting someone else's work in one's own words without proper attribution.

Mosaic Plagiarism: Combining phrases, ideas, or sentences from various sources to create a new work without proper citation.

Misappropriation of material: Using another person’s data, figures, images or other intellectual material without appropriate acknowledgement can also constitute plagiarism.

Plagiarism and Copyright

Plagiarism concerns inadequate attribution or misrepresentation of intellectual contributions; copyright infringement concerns use of protected material without sufficient permission or lawful authorisation. Both can arise from the same act, but a citation alone does not replace any required permission. Authors must credit sources and secure third-party permissions as needed. Open-licensed material may be reused in accordance with its licence, including attribution terms. See EJMCR Copyright Information.

Text Recycling and Redundant Publication

Reuse of an author’s own work is assessed by the amount and location of overlap, attribution, the extent of new information or analysis, whether methods or results and conclusions are repeated, transparency of prior publication, and applicable copyright or licence terms. Limited standard methods wording is not necessarily misconduct. Substantially duplicate findings without disclosure or justification may be redundant publication.
Dividing one study into minimally distinct papers may be inappropriate “salami publication”; distinct questions or substantial new analyses from the same dataset may be legitimate with disclosure and citation. Simultaneous submission of substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals is inappropriate and may lead to rejection if a serious breach is established. This differs from a disclosed preprint.

Preprints and Prior Dissemination

EJMCR may consider manuscripts posted on recognised preprint servers. A preprint is not, by itself, prior journal publication. Authors must disclose the server and DOI or permanent URL at submission and, where possible, update the preprint with the final article citation. Overlap with the disclosed preprint is not automatically plagiarism or redundancy; a preprint must not be described as peer reviewed unless separately reviewed. This exception does not excuse undisclosed duplication of a prior journal article. See Discover STM Ethical Policies.
A disclosed conference abstract, poster or preliminary presentation does not necessarily preclude an appropriate full report. Editors assess the additional contribution and circumstances. Translation or secondary publication is not automatically acceptable in another language; it may be considered where the relevant editors authorise it, the primary work is clearly acknowledged, and applicable ICMJE overlapping-publication principles and copyright requirements are met.

Overlapping Clinical Cases and Datasets

For case reports and series, editors consider whether the same patient, episode, diagnostic findings, images, treatment, outcome or dataset substantially repeats an earlier publication. Reuse of a patient or dataset is not automatically misconduct: a genuinely distinct clinical question, analysis, follow-up or educational contribution may justify another report if the earlier work is disclosed and cited. Presenting substantially the same case as an independent new report without transparent acknowledgement may constitute redundant publication.

Similarity Screening

EJMCR may use iThenticate or other appropriate similarity-screening tools at suitable stages of editorial processing to identify textual overlap for assessment. A similarity report is an aid to editorial judgement; it does not establish plagiarism or certify originality, and it cannot detect every integrity problem.

Interpreting Similarity Reports

EJMCR does not determine plagiarism from an overall similarity percentage. Editors examine matched sources, the location and nature of overlap, attribution, disclosures, publication history and the effect on originality and integrity. A low score does not prove the absence of plagiarism; a high score need not establish misconduct. Significant unattributed overlap may merit investigation even with a low overall score. References, attributed quotations, standard terminology, technical or methods descriptions, disclosed preprints and cited prior material require contextual assessment rather than automatic exclusion or acceptance.

Assessment and Editorial Action

Potential overlap may be identified by screening, peer review or a report from another party. The editor examines the sources, attribution, disclosures and publication history, and considers whether the issue is plagiarism, text recycling, redundant publication, copyright or another integrity concern. In substantive cases, authors should ordinarily have an appropriate opportunity to explain and provide relevant sources, related publications or permission details. The editor evaluates the response and evidence, with publisher or institutional assistance where warranted, before deciding on action.

Minor attribution or text-reuse problems may be addressed through clarification, citation, corrected quotation, rephrasing or revision. Serious, substantiated plagiarism or redundant publication may justify rejection, publisher involvement or institutional referral. Neither rejection nor institutional notification follows automatically from a similarity result. Any restriction on future submissions requires a separately approved, fair and documented procedure. Editorial decisions are independent of APCs and commercial considerations; payment cannot resolve proven serious plagiarism. Relevant COPE guidance informs proportionate handling.

Post-Publication Concerns

Concerns identified after publication are assessed under EJMCR and Discover STM post-publication procedures. Depending on the evidence and effect on the scholarly record, the outcome may be no action, clarification or correction, an expression of concern, or retraction. Serious plagiarism or redundant publication may warrant retraction when it undermines an article’s legitimacy or integrity; not every unattributed passage does. Retraction serves the accuracy of the record rather than operating solely as a sanction. See EJMCR Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern and Discover STM Corrections, Retractions and Allegations of Misconduct.

Artificial Intelligence and Other Integrity Issues

AI systems cannot be authors. Human authors remain responsible for originality, accurate references, data, images and disclosure of relevant AI assistance under applicable policy. AI-generated references must be checked; fabricated references, patient histories, clinical data or images must not be presented as authentic evidence. AI-assisted wording copied from identifiable sources without attribution may raise plagiarism concerns. An AI-detection score alone does not establish plagiarism, misconduct or prohibited AI use. Falsified data, manipulated images and misrepresented ethics approval are separate integrity concerns even where text similarity is low. See Discover STM Ethical Policies.

Reporting Concerns

Readers, researchers and reviewers may report suspected plagiarism or overlapping publication to the EJMCR Editorial Office. Useful details include the article or manuscript, the matching source, where and how they overlap, a DOI or URL where available, and supporting information. Complainants need not prove misconduct. Reviewers should report concerns confidentially to the editor, not publicly accuse authors or independently approach institutions. Editors assess evidence impartially, avoid describing unproven allegations as facts, and share relevant information with responsible parties when needed for a fair investigation or required by law.

* iThenticate is the registered trademark of Turnitin

Last reviewed: October 2026
Policy responsibility: EJMCR Editorial Office, in accordance with Discover STM Publishing Ltd policies.