How Directive Publications screens every submission for originality and handles suspected plagiarism, in line with COPE and ICMJE.
Every article published by Directive Publications must be the authors' own original work, properly attributed, and neither previously published nor under consideration elsewhere. We regard originality screening not as an obstacle but as a safeguard — it protects the credibility of authors, the trust of readers, and the integrity of the scholarly record. Our approach follows the COPE Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations, the standards that define responsible publishing.
Because every published article receives a Crossref-registered Digital Object Identifier (DOI, prefix 10.52338) and is made openly available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licence — with authors retaining copyright — each paper is openly citable and traceable. Its DOI links readers reliably back to the work and to the people who produced it, which is precisely why originality matters: what we publish is attributed to named researchers, so it must be honest and properly credited from the outset.
This policy applies to all article types across all of our journals, and to every author and co-author named on a submission. Similarity screening is performed at initial submission and may be repeated at revision or at any later stage of the editorial process. Submitting authors are responsible for ensuring that all co-authors are aware of, and agree with, the content submitted on their behalf.
This page complements our broader integrity framework. Please read it alongside our Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies, which set out the full expectations for authorship, disclosure, and responsible conduct.
Every manuscript is screened for text similarity before or during peer review. We use industry-standard similarity-detection software that compares the submitted text against a large corpus of published scholarly literature and web content, generating a report that highlights matching or overlapping passages.
These similarity reports are reviewed confidentially by editors and editorial staff. They are diagnostic tools for the editorial team and are not, as a matter of routine, shared with authors or reviewers. Screening operates within our double-blind peer-review model, so the process supports — rather than replaces — the expert judgement of editors and reviewers and the vigilance of the wider research community.
On submission, authors confirm that the work is original, that it has not been published elsewhere, and that it is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. In line with ICMJE Recommendations, authors must also disclose to the handling editor any related or overlapping work — whether published, in press, or under review — and provide copies of such material so the editor can assess any potential overlap. Full expectations are set out in our Author Guidelines.
Plagiarism takes several forms, and our editors are trained to recognise each of them:
An important distinction guides how we respond: plagiarism of others' work is always misconduct, whereas text recycling of one's own work is judged case-by-case, in context and against COPE guidance, as explained below.
A similarity score is a signal, not a verdict. Directive Publications applies no fixed percentage cut-off, because a single number cannot capture whether overlap is legitimate or problematic. Editors read the full report in context before drawing any conclusion.
Many sources of overlap are entirely legitimate and can inflate a score — for example, correctly quoted and cited passages, standard methods and instrument descriptions, reference lists, common technical or discipline-specific phrasing, and author names and affiliations. Conversely, a low overall score can still conceal a serious problem, such as the theft of an idea, dataset, or figure expressed in different words. For these reasons, the final judgement always rests with the editor, who weighs the substance and pattern of any overlap rather than a percentage alone.
Sound scholarly practice prevents most similarity concerns before they arise. We ask authors to:
We encourage authors to register for an ORCID identifier and link it to their submission, creating a verified, unambiguous record of authorship that strengthens the attribution of their work.
Reusing your own previously published words is acceptable only in limited and transparent ways, consistent with COPE's guidance on text recycling. Location matters: a degree of recycling in a Methods section — where established procedures may legitimately be described in similar terms — is generally more acceptable than recycled text in the Introduction, Results, or Discussion. In all cases, the source publication must be cited and the overlap flagged for the editor. Wholesale reuse of text, or the reuse of results and conclusions, is not acceptable. Our Editorial Policies describe how such cases are handled.
In line with ICMJE Recommendations, authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time, and must not divide a single study into multiple overlapping papers ("salami slicing"). Acceptable secondary publication — for instance, publication in a different language for a distinct audience — is permitted only with full disclosure, the approval of the editors of both journals, and clear cross-citation between the two versions.
We follow a fair, transparent, and COPE-aligned process. When a concern is flagged — whether through screening, peer review, or a reader report — it is assessed by the handling editor. Before any decision on an unpublished manuscript, the corresponding author is given a genuine opportunity to respond and explain. Where a case appears substantiated, we may, in accordance with the relevant COPE flowcharts, contact the author's institution or employer. Throughout, we maintain confidentiality and due process, and we document our decisions.
Outcomes are graduated according to the severity of the issue, and may include:
The published record is always corrected openly and transparently — never silently altered or quietly removed.
Post-publication integrity issues are handled under the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction is itself published, linked to the original article, and assigned or retained DOIs so that the scholarly record remains complete and traceable. This metadata is exposed to the wider community through Crossref, OAI-PMH, and JATS. Full details are set out in our Corrections & Retractions Policy.
This policy sits within a wider integrity framework — see our Publication Ethics, Editorial Policies, and Corrections & Retractions policies. We welcome reports of suspected plagiarism or other integrity concerns from authors, reviewers, and readers alike. Please contact our editorial office at [email protected], or write to us at Directive Publications, 30 N Gould St, Sheridan, WY 82801, USA. Concerns raised in good faith are handled confidentially and taken seriously.
Ready to submit original work you can stand behind? Visit our journals or begin your submission.