Plagiarism
Reproducing text, data, figures, or ideas from another source without attribution — including close paraphrase and translated text. Screened with iThenticate or Turnitin at desk check and before acceptance.
Our position
Integrity is a process, not a promise
IJKR follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and its Code of Conduct. Where a case is not covered by our own policy, we apply the relevant COPE flowchart and record the reasoning in the manuscript file.
Ethical review is not a single gate at submission. Screening happens at desk check, during peer review, at copyediting, and after publication whenever a credible concern is raised — including on articles that have been in the archive for years.
-
Every manuscript is screened
Similarity, image, and reference checks apply to all submissions with no exemptions for editors or board members.
-
Decisions rest with the editors
Editorial decisions are made on scientific merit alone. The publisher does not intervene in acceptance or rejection.
-
The record is corrected in public
Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern are published openly and stay linked to the original article.
-
Nothing is charged, at any stage
No submission, review, or publication fee means no financial incentive to accept a weak paper.
What we screen for
Forms of misconduct
Each of the following carries sanctions. The list is not exhaustive; anything that misrepresents the research or its authorship is treated the same way.
Duplicate submission
Submitting a manuscript that is published, or under review, elsewhere. Where authors build on their own earlier work, that work must be cited and the new contribution stated explicitly.
Redundant publication
Splitting one study into several papers to increase output ("salami slicing"), where the parts add nothing that the whole would not.
Data fabrication and falsification
Reporting results that were not obtained, or altering data, statistics, or images so that the findings are no longer a fair record of what was observed.
Image manipulation
Splicing, duplicating, or selectively enhancing parts of a figure. Adjustments applied to the whole image must be disclosed in the caption; original files may be requested.
Citation manipulation
References included to inflate the count of an author or a journal, and coercive citation requests from editors or reviewers. Excessive author and journal self-citation is queried at review.
Improper authorship
Gift, guest, and ghost authorship; omitting a contributor who qualifies; or adding and removing authors after submission without the written agreement of all parties.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Financial, professional, or personal interests that a reader could reasonably see as affecting the work, left undeclared by an author, reviewer, or editor.
Paper mills and fraudulent review
Purchased manuscripts or authorship slots, fabricated reviewer identities, and suggested reviewers with untraceable or non-institutional contact details.
Undisclosed generative AI use
AI-assisted writing, analysis, or figure preparation that is not declared, AI listed as an author, and AI-fabricated references, data, or images.
Breach of confidentiality
Sharing, publishing, or using an unpublished manuscript under review — including uploading it to an AI service or discussing it outside the review process.
Copyright infringement
Reusing third-party figures, tables, or extended quotations without written permission. Authors are responsible for obtaining and evidencing permissions before submission.
Who is accountable for what
Responsibilities by role
Authors
- —Submit original work, not under consideration elsewhere
- —Keep records and raw data available for a reasonable period after publication
- —Cite all influential and competing prior work honestly
- —Ensure every listed author qualifies and has approved the submitted version
- —Declare funding, competing interests, ethics approval, and AI use
- —Notify the editor promptly of any error found after publication
Reviewers
- —Accept only manuscripts within your expertise and available time
- —Treat the manuscript as confidential; never share, copy, or upload it
- —Decline where a conflict exists, or declare it to the editor
- —Judge the work, not the authors; give specific, constructive, evidenced comments
- —Flag suspected plagiarism, duplication, or ethical concerns to the editor rather than the authors
- —Never request citations to your own work without a scientific reason
Editors
- —Decide on scientific merit alone, independent of the publisher
- —Judge without regard to authors' nationality, institution, gender, or seniority
- —Disclose no information about a submission except to reviewers and the editorial office
- —Hand over any manuscript in which they have an interest to an independent editor
- —Act on credible concerns, before or after publication
- —Publish corrections and retractions promptly and without defensiveness
Editors and board members who submit their own work are removed from all handling and decision records for that manuscript. Full detail in the Editorial Policies.
Competing interests
Conflicts of interest
A conflict exists where something outside the research could reasonably be seen as affecting its neutrality — whether or not it actually did. Declaring an interest rarely prevents publication; failing to declare one can lead to rejection or retraction.
Types to declare
| Financial | Funding, fees, goods or services received or expected, from anyone with an interest in the outcome |
|---|---|
| Affiliation | Employment, advisory board membership, or affiliation with an interested organisation |
| Intellectual property | Patents, trademarks, or licences held by an author or their institution |
| Personal | Family, close friendships, and other personal connections |
| Ideological | Political, religious, or activist commitments directly relevant to the work |
| Academic | Direct competition with the work, or being the author of work it critiques |
Required statement
Every manuscript carries a Conflicts of Interest section. Where none exists, use exactly:
"The author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper."
The corresponding author is responsible for collecting declarations from every co-author. Declared interests are published with the article.
When editors and reviewers must step back
Where they have a recent publication or submission with an author, share or recently shared an affiliation, have collaborated recently, hold a close personal connection or a financial interest in the subject, or feel unable to judge objectively. Previous discussion of the manuscript with the authors must be disclosed.
Human and animal research
Consent, approval, and anonymity
Research involving human participants requires approval from a named ethics committee, with the reference number stated in the manuscript, and confirmation that the study followed the Declaration of Helsinki. Animal research requires the approving body and adherence to the applicable national guidelines.
Identifiable individual data — case histories, photographs, videos, imaging, genetic pedigrees — may only be published with specific written consent from the participant, from a parent or legal guardian for those under 18, or from the next of kin where the person is deceased.
Do not send us the consent forms
To protect participant anonymity, signed forms stay with the authors and their institution. The manuscript carries a statement that consent was obtained; the forms may be requested by the editor in the event of a concern.
Anonymisation is not a substitute for consent
Masking eyes in a photograph or removing a name does not make a case unidentifiable. Consent to publish is still required.
Raising and handling concerns
Investigations
Suspected breaches — before or after publication — should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief at ethics@ijkr.org with the article details and the specific concern. Concerns raised in good faith are taken seriously whether the reporter is named or anonymous.
-
1
Acknowledgement
Receipt confirmed within five working days and the case logged with a reference.
-
2
Assessment
The editors evaluate the evidence against the relevant COPE flowchart and may consult independent experts.
-
3
Right of reply
The authors are given the specific allegation and a reasonable period to respond in writing before any decision.
-
4
Outcome
Correction, retraction, expression of concern, or no action — with the reasoning recorded and the institution notified where warranted.
Corrections & Retractions →
How errata, corrigenda, addenda, retractions, and expressions of concern are issued and linked to the article.
Licensing & Copyright →
Who owns what, the CC BY 4.0 terms, permissions for third-party material, and how to report infringement.
Peer Review Process →
The double-blind model, reviewer selection, confidentiality rules, and how decisions are reached.
Consequences
Sanctions
Where a breach of these policies is documented, the following apply. Sanctions are proportionate to what happened and whether it appears deliberate; they are not applied on suspicion alone.
| Severity | Action |
|---|---|
| Correctable error | The manuscript is returned for revision, or a corrigendum is published if already online. No further sanction. |
| Confirmed breach, under review | Immediate rejection of the manuscript, with the reason stated to all listed authors. |
| Confirmed breach, published | Retraction with a public notice naming the reason, following the COPE retraction guidelines. The article stays online, watermarked, so the record remains complete. |
| Deliberate misconduct | Rejection of all other manuscripts from the same authors under consideration, and a submission ban of 24 to 36 months depending on severity, applying to those authors individually and in any combination. |
| Any confirmed breach by an editor or reviewer | Removal from the Editorial Board or reviewer panel, and exclusion from any future role with the journal. |
| In all cases | The authors' institution and, where relevant, the funder may be notified. Records of the case are retained by the editorial office. |
Authors who consider a sanction unjust may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days. Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, and the outcome of an appeal is final.