Anti-Plagiarism Policy

Anti-Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy

Renaissance of Universal Mind · RUM PUBLISHING GROUP MCHJ

1. Mandatory screening and responsibility

Every submitted manuscript is checked by the editorial office using Milliy Antiplag (milliyantiplag.uz). Screening forms part of initial editorial assessment before a manuscript proceeds to scientific peer review. It does not replace peer review, an examination of the cited sources or the editor’s responsibility for a reasoned decision.

2. What constitutes plagiarism

Plagiarism includes unattributed copying of text, ideas, data, code, tables or images; close paraphrasing; mosaic copying; and translating another work without credit. Citing a source does not make an extensive verbatim passage acceptable without quotation or another appropriate indication of reuse. Permissions and copyright conditions must also be respected.

3. Similarity is not a plagiarism verdict

A similarity percentage describes matches within the sources and processing available to the checking system. It is not a percentage of proven plagiarism, a measurement of originality or proof of AI authorship. A low score can miss uncited ideas or inaccessible sources; a high score may include legitimate quotations, references or standard terminology.

4. No automatic acceptance or rejection threshold

The journal does not apply a universal percentage as an automatic acceptance or rejection rule. Editors consider the amount, concentration, location and nature of overlap, the validity of attribution and the contribution claimed. Even a small uncited appropriation of a central result can be serious. A report cannot guarantee that a manuscript is free of misconduct.

5. Report settings and exclusions

Where the checking tool supports exclusions, the editor records the settings actually used. References, quotations, common phrases, formulae and method descriptions require contextual interpretation; they are not automatically irrelevant. Abstracts, results, figures and tables must not be excluded in a way that conceals substantive overlap. Scores obtained with different settings or databases are not directly comparable.

6. Manual verification

The editor inspects highlighted passages and, where accessible, the underlying sources; checks quotations, references and chronology; and distinguishes common wording from appropriation of findings. OCR errors, broken text, translation and limited corpus coverage may affect detection. Technical limitations must lead to further assessment rather than an invented confidence claim.

7. Prior work, preprints and translation

Authors disclose prior publications, theses, preprints, conference versions and related submissions at the outset. Legitimate reuse must be identified and the new contribution explained. A disclosed preprint is not automatically plagiarism; redundant publication, undeclared translations and misleading reuse of data are assessed separately.

8. Author clarification and revision

When a concern is identified, the author may be asked to explain specific passages and provide sources or permissions. Correctable attribution or quotation problems may require revision and another check of the revised manuscript. Cosmetic paraphrasing, character substitution, invisible text and translation intended to evade detection are unacceptable.

9. Decisions and investigations

Decisions may include proceeding to peer review, requesting revision, pausing assessment or rejection with reasons. Substantial unattributed copying, stolen results or deliberate concealment may trigger the misconduct procedure. The author must have an opportunity to respond; serious cases may be referred to an appropriate institution with relevant evidence.

10. After publication

Readers may report suspected overlap with article links, passages and source details. Confirmed problems are considered under the corrections, retractions and expressions of concern policy; an allegation or software percentage alone is insufficient for retraction. The response must reflect the reliability and extent of the published contribution.

11. Confidentiality and handling of reports

Screening requires processing the manuscript by Milliy Antiplag. Access to the manuscript and report must be restricted to authorised editorial participants and necessary service processing; reports are not routinely public. Unpublished material must not be repurposed into a public corpus without an appropriate basis and author information. Questions about access and retention go to the editorial office.

12. Appeals and author guidance

An author may challenge a screening-based decision with the disputed passages, correct sources, evidence of permission and an explanation of any earlier version. Review concerns the evidence, not a purchased certificate or a target score. Authors should quote accurately, paraphrase independently, credit data and images, and verify every reference themselves.

Milliy Antiplag

Related policies and information

Editorial office: editor@rum-journal.com.