Plagiarism Policy

Teaching, Learning, and Development is committed to maintaining the originality, integrity, and reliability of the scholarly work it publishes. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable. This policy defines plagiarism, explains the journal’s screening and assessment procedures, and describes the actions taken when concerns are identified.

By submitting a manuscript, authors confirm that their work is original, that all sources have been appropriately acknowledged, and that any overlap with previously disseminated work has been disclosed. All authors share responsibility for the integrity of the submission.

1. Description

1.1. Definition and Forms of Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting another person’s words, ideas, methods, data, findings, images, or other intellectual contributions as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgment. It includes, but is not limited to:

Direct copying: reproducing text without appropriate citation and, for verbatim passages, quotation marks or block quotation formatting.
Inappropriate paraphrasing: closely following the wording or structure of a source without sufficient reformulation and attribution. Changing a few words does not make borrowed material original.
Mosaic plagiarism: combining copied or closely paraphrased material from multiple sources without clearly acknowledging those sources.
Unattributed use of ideas: presenting another person’s ideas, theories, interpretations, methods, or arguments as an original contribution.
Unattributed use of data or visual material: reproducing or adapting data, findings, tables, figures, images, or other materials without appropriate acknowledgment.
Translation plagiarism: translating material from another language and presenting it as original work without acknowledging the source.
Misappropriation of unpublished work: using material obtained through peer review, confidential communications, or other privileged access without authorization and appropriate attribution.
Whole-work plagiarism: submitting another person’s manuscript or publication, in whole or substantially in part, as one’s own work.

Citation and permission serve different purposes. A citation does not replace permission where permission is required, and permission to reproduce material does not remove the obligation to acknowledge its source.

1.2. Text Recycling and Redundant Publication

Undisclosed reuse of substantial portions of an author’s own previously published text may constitute inappropriate text recycling. Republishing substantially the same data, findings, or scholarly contribution without appropriate disclosure, justification, and cross-referencing may constitute redundant or duplicate publication.

Authors must cite related prior work, disclose relevant overlap, and explain the distinct contribution of the submitted manuscript. Editors assess overlap in context, including its extent, location, and significance. Limited overlap in descriptions of established methods is assessed differently from the reuse of results or conclusions.

2. Policy Details

2.1. Screening Tool and Timing

All submitted manuscripts undergo similarity screening using Turnitin before external peer review. Additional screening may be conducted during revision, before publication, or when concerns arise after publication.

Similarity screening supports editorial assessment but cannot identify every form of plagiarism, particularly the misappropriation of ideas, translated material, unpublished work, or non-textual content.

2.2. Similarity Threshold and Interpretation

The journal’s maximum acceptable overall similarity score is 20%, calculated using the exclusions described in Section 3.3. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold require further editorial scrutiny and may be returned for revision or rejected.

A similarity score is an indicator of textual overlap, not a determination of plagiarism. A score of 20% or below does not establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism or guarantee acceptance. Conversely, a higher score does not by itself prove misconduct.

Editors examine the matched sources, the concentration of overlap with individual sources, the sections affected, the adequacy of quotation and citation, and the significance of the borrowed material. Substantial unattributed copying from a single source may be unacceptable even when the overall score is below 20%.

2.3. Exclusions from Similarity Calculation

The standard similarity calculation excludes the reference list or bibliography and properly formatted direct quotations where these are recognized by the screening software. Editors must still verify that quotations are appropriately cited and that excluded material does not conceal inappropriate copying.

Any adjustments to screening settings must be justified and applied consistently. Exclusions must not be used merely to reduce a manuscript’s score below the threshold. Excessive quotation or reliance on borrowed material may remain unsuitable even when correctly attributed.

2.4. Action Before Publication

Where overlap reflects limited citation, quotation, or paraphrasing deficiencies that can be adequately corrected, editors may require revision before further consideration. Authors must resolve the underlying attribution and originality concerns rather than simply substitute words to reduce the similarity score.

Confirmed substantial plagiarism will result in rejection or, if the manuscript has already been accepted but not published, withdrawal of acceptance. For serious cases, the journal may notify the authors’ institutions or other relevant parties and request an investigation.

2.5. Action After Publication

Concerns about a published article will be investigated regardless of when they are reported. The action taken will depend on the extent and significance of the issue and its effect on the scholarly record.

Correction: may be appropriate for limited attribution or copying problems that can be adequately remedied without undermining the article’s overall integrity.
Expression of concern: may be issued when substantial concerns remain unresolved and readers need to be alerted while further information or an institutional investigation is awaited.
Retraction: may be required for substantial plagiarism, serious misappropriation of data or findings, or redundant publication that warrants removal from the reliable scholarly literature.

Retraction notices will identify the affected article, explain the reasons for retraction, and be linked to the article. Retracted articles will normally remain available with clear retraction labeling rather than being silently removed. The purpose of retraction is to protect the scholarly record and inform readers, rather than to punish authors.

The journal may notify relevant institutions, affected authors, publishers, or indexing services where appropriate. An author’s disagreement does not prevent a correction or retraction when the available evidence warrants action.

3. Implementation and Procedures

3.1. Editorial Evaluation

The editorial office generates a similarity report and refers identified concerns to the responsible editor. The editor evaluates the evidence in context, distinguishing legitimate overlap, such as common terminology or appropriately attributed material, from inappropriate copying or misappropriation.

Relevant reports, correspondence, explanations, and decisions will be retained securely as part of the journal’s editorial records.

3.2. Author Responsibilities

Authors must:

Ensure that the manuscript reflects their own scholarly contribution.
Clearly distinguish their work from material obtained from other sources.
Use quotation formatting and citations appropriately.
Verify references and consult the sources they cite.
Obtain permission for protected material where required.
Disclose related publications and explain relevant overlap.
Respond to editorial inquiries and provide supporting information when requested.
Promptly notify the journal of significant attribution or originality problems discovered after submission or publication.

3.3. Handling Suspected Cases

The journal will use relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance when assessing suspected plagiarism. Editors will gather documentary evidence, assess the extent of the concern, and contact the corresponding author in neutral terms with an opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe.

Where necessary, the journal will contact the other authors, request additional evidence, or refer concerns to the relevant institution. Failure to respond does not prevent the journal from taking action based on sufficient evidence.

Editors with a conflict of interest must not lead the assessment. Concerns will be handled confidentially to the extent possible, with information shared only where necessary for a fair investigation or correction of the scholarly record.

3.4. Reporting and Appeals

Suspected plagiarism may be reported to telad.journal@gmail.com. Reports should identify the article or manuscript, the original source, and the specific passages or materials concerned, with supporting evidence where available.

Authors may appeal a decision in accordance with the journal’s Complaints and Appeals policy. Appeals should provide a clear explanation and relevant evidence rather than rely solely on the overall similarity score.

3.5. Transparency and Policy Review

The journal will explain material originality concerns and the reasons for its decisions to the authors. Public notices will communicate corrections to the scholarly record clearly while respecting applicable confidentiality and privacy obligations.

This policy and its implementation procedures will be reviewed periodically to reflect developments in screening technology and publication ethics guidance.