Plagiarism Policy

Purpose

The International Review of FinTech Business and Management (IRFBM), published by the Academy of Decision and Data Sciences (ADDS), is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and research ethics. The journal has a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism and expects all submitted manuscripts to represent original scholarly work.

IRFBM follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including the guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Every submission is evaluated for originality before entering the peer review process.

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

  • Copying text without proper acknowledgment.

  • Presenting another person's ideas, data, figures, tables, images, or results as one's own.

  • Reusing substantial portions of previously published work without appropriate citation.

  • Submitting another person's work under one's own authorship.

  • Inadequate paraphrasing that closely follows the original wording or structure.

  • Translation plagiarism, where work published in another language is presented without proper attribution.

  • Self-plagiarism or redundant publication involving substantial reuse of an author's own previously published material without appropriate disclosure or citation.

Plagiarism may occur intentionally or unintentionally. Regardless of intent, all confirmed cases are treated seriously.

Similarity Screening

All manuscripts submitted to IRFBM undergo originality screening before peer review.

The journal may use recognized plagiarism detection software, including:

  • iThenticate

  • Turnitin

  • Other reputable similarity detection systems adopted by the journal

Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial office. Editorial decisions are not based solely on the overall similarity percentage; the nature, context, source, and significance of overlapping material are carefully assessed.

Similarity Thresholds

As a general guideline, IRFBM expects:

  • An overall similarity index of less than 15%.

  • Similarity from any single source should normally not exceed 5%.

These thresholds serve as editorial guidance rather than automatic acceptance or rejection criteria.

Certain types of overlap may be acceptable, including:

  • Standard methodological descriptions.

  • Properly quoted material.

  • Correctly cited definitions.

  • References and bibliographic entries.

  • Ethical approval statements.

  • Standard reporting guidelines.

The Editor-in-Chief retains discretion in interpreting similarity reports based on the academic context of each submission.

Editorial Assessment

When similarity is identified, the editorial office evaluates:

  • Whether all overlapping material has been properly cited.

  • The originality of the manuscript's contribution.

  • The extent of duplicated wording.

  • The location of overlapping text.

  • Whether copyright has been respected.

  • Whether the overlap constitutes plagiarism or acceptable scholarly practice.

Where necessary, authors may be asked to explain or revise overlapping content before the manuscript proceeds to peer review.

Editorial Actions

Depending on the severity of the issue, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Request revision to remove or properly cite overlapping material.

  • Require resubmission after substantial rewriting.

  • Reject the manuscript before peer review.

  • Reject the manuscript following peer review.

  • Suspend editorial consideration while an investigation is conducted.

Serious cases involving extensive plagiarism, fabricated attribution, or deliberate academic misconduct will normally result in immediate rejection.

Post-Publication Plagiarism

If plagiarism is discovered after publication, IRFBM will investigate the matter in accordance with internationally accepted publication ethics procedures.

Following investigation, the journal may:

  • Publish a correction.

  • Publish an expression of concern.

  • Retract the article.

  • Remove the article where legally required.

  • Notify the authors' institutions or funding organizations when appropriate.

  • Inform relevant indexing and abstracting services of the publication status.

Any post-publication action will be accompanied by a transparent public notice explaining the reason for the editorial decision.

Author Responsibilities

By submitting a manuscript to IRFBM, authors confirm that:

  • The work is entirely original.

  • All sources have been properly cited and acknowledged.

  • Appropriate quotation marks and citations have been used where necessary.

  • The manuscript has not been copied from published or unpublished sources.

  • Any reuse of their own previously published work has been fully disclosed and appropriately referenced.

  • The manuscript has not been submitted simultaneously to another journal unless explicitly permitted.

  • Permission has been obtained for any copyrighted material included in the manuscript.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors agree with these declarations.

Self-Plagiarism

IRFBM recognizes that authors may build upon their previous research; however, substantial duplication of previously published work without proper disclosure is not acceptable.

Authors must clearly identify and cite any earlier publications that overlap with the submitted manuscript.

Duplicate publication, salami publication, and redundant publication may result in rejection or retraction where appropriate.

Reviewer and Editor Responsibilities

Editors and reviewers who identify possible plagiarism during the editorial or peer review process should promptly notify the editorial office.

The journal will investigate all credible allegations fairly, confidentially, and without bias.

Reviewers should not independently contact authors regarding suspected plagiarism.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with a plagiarism-related editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals should include:

  • A detailed explanation of the concern.

  • Supporting evidence.

  • Clarification regarding the originality of the work, where applicable.

The editorial office may conduct an additional review before reaching a final decision. Decisions following the appeal process are considered final.

Contact

Questions regarding plagiarism screening, originality assessment, or publication ethics may be directed to:

International Review of FinTech Business and Management (IRFBM)
Academy of Decision and Data Sciences (ADDS)
Email: editor.irfbm@addsacademy.com

Policy Review

This policy is reviewed periodically to reflect developments in publication ethics, plagiarism detection technologies, and international scholarly publishing standards. Any revisions will be published on the journal website and will apply to future submissions unless otherwise stated.