Plagiarism Screening Policy

BEMO | RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Plagiarism Screening Policy

Protecting originality and responsible attribution in mathematical research.

BEMO requires original scholarly submissions and appropriate attribution of all previously published ideas, text, equations, data, software, figures, and research findings.

1. Prohibited Practices

  • Presenting another researcher's work without appropriate attribution.
  • Copying or closely paraphrasing text without acknowledgment.
  • Reusing substantial portions of previous publications without transparent disclosure.
  • Misrepresenting previously published models, proofs, algorithms, or results as original.
  • Submitting substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.
  • Manipulating citations or references to conceal the source of intellectual contributions.

2. Originality Assessment

Manuscripts are subject to editorial originality assessment. Similarity-detection tools may be used to support this process where available, but a software-generated similarity score is not sufficient evidence of plagiarism.

The editor evaluates the extent, nature, and context of overlap, including whether the relevant sources have been acknowledged.

3. Mathematical and Computational Materials

BEMO recognizes that established mathematical notation, standard equations, conventional terminology, and widely used numerical methods may legitimately appear across multiple publications.

Nevertheless, original model developments, derivations, proofs, simulation codes, and computational findings must be attributed appropriately when based on prior work.

4. Similarity Thresholds

No numerical similarity percentage is treated as an automatic determination of plagiarism. Any internal screening threshold is an indicator for editorial assessment rather than a substitute for expert judgment.

5. Investigation Procedure

  1. Identify and document potentially problematic overlap.
  2. Compare the manuscript with relevant original sources.
  3. Request an explanation from the authors when appropriate.
  4. Assess whether the issue involves correctable attribution, substantial duplication, or suspected misconduct.
  5. Determine revision, rejection, referral, or post-publication action as appropriate.

6. Editorial Outcomes

Depending on severity, identified problems may result in revision, rejection, correction, retraction, or communication with relevant institutions. Authors must be given a fair opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.

Editorial Principle: Plagiarism decisions are evidence-based and consider disciplinary conventions, not similarity percentages alone.