1. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves the use or presentation of another person's intellectual contribution, expression, research material, or scholarly work without appropriate acknowledgment, in circumstances that misrepresent its origin or authorship.

Practices that may constitute plagiarism include:

• Direct Textual Plagiarism: Reproducing another person's wording, paragraphs, or substantial passages without appropriate quotation, citation, or attribution.
• Improper Paraphrasing: Closely imitating a source's language, distinctive structure, or substantive expression while presenting the material as independently written.
• Misappropriation of Ideas: Presenting another researcher's original concepts, theories, hypotheses, arguments, or methodological contributions as one's own.
• Data and Results Plagiarism: Using another researcher's datasets, analyses, observations, results, or other evidentiary material without appropriate acknowledgment or authorization.
• Image and Figure Plagiarism: Reusing or adapting scientific images, photographs, medical illustrations, figures, tables, or diagrams without appropriate acknowledgment or required permission.
• Translation Plagiarism: Translating previously published material into another language and presenting it as an original contribution without appropriate disclosure and attribution.
• Mosaic or Patchwork Plagiarism: Combining copied or closely paraphrased material from multiple sources in a way that conceals their provenance.
• Misleading Reuse of Previous Work: Reproducing substantial portions of an author's own previously disseminated material without transparent acknowledgment, where the reuse misrepresents originality or creates inappropriate publication overlap.

1.1 Attribution and Source Identification

Authors must provide accurate citations for relevant prior scholarship, including published articles, books, preprints, theses, research reports, datasets, software, and other identifiable research materials.

Direct quotations must be clearly distinguished from the authors' own text where applicable. Paraphrased material must acknowledge the original source even when the wording has been substantially changed.

1.2 Plagiarism, Copyright, and Research Integrity

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are distinct concerns. Material may be plagiarized even where copyright permission has been obtained if appropriate scholarly attribution is absent. Conversely, properly attributed material may still require copyright permission or compliance with an applicable licence.

A citation alone does not automatically justify extensive reproduction of protected material, and permission to reuse material does not eliminate the obligation to identify its original scholarly source.

1.3 Application Across Research Disciplines

These requirements apply to conventional medical research, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), biomedical sciences, public health, clinical and translational studies, theoretical scholarship, historical research, and interdisciplinary health sciences. The journal considers relevant disciplinary citation practices while requiring accurate attribution and an identifiable original contribution.

2. Similarity Threshold

Health Nexus requires all new manuscript submissions to be accompanied by a complete official similarity report generated by a recognized academic similarity-checking service.

2.1 Accepted Similarity Reports

A submitted similarity report must:

• Be generated by a recognized academic similarity-checking service.
• Be supplied as a complete PDF rather than an isolated screenshot or manually reproduced score.
• Correspond to the manuscript version being submitted.
• Show the overall similarity result and the underlying matching-source information.
• Permit reasonable evaluation of the nature and extent of relevant matches.
• Preserve the integrity of the software-generated report and its relevant comparison settings.
• Be submitted in accordance with the journal's current technical instructions.

A self-declared similarity percentage, an incomplete report, or a manipulated PDF is not an acceptable substitute for the required official documentation.

2.2 Interpretation of Similarity Scores

A similarity index measures textual matches against materials available to the checking service. It does not independently determine whether the matched material has been used improperly.

Editorial interpretation may consider:

• The original sources responsible for the matches.
• The location of the matched passages within the manuscript.
• Whether the text has been appropriately attributed or quoted.
• The presence of conventional terminology or standardized methodological descriptions.
• The relationship between the manuscript and relevant preprints, theses, or earlier publications.
• Whether the matched text affects originality, evidence, scientific interpretation, or intellectual contribution.
• The significance of overlap with any particular source.

Reference lists, standard terminology, and legitimate methodological descriptions may generate textual matches without constituting plagiarism. Their significance is assessed in context.

Similarity-report exclusions and filtering settings must be used transparently and must not be manipulated to conceal relevant matching material or artificially produce a compliant result.

2.3 Single-Source Similarity

A manuscript may contain unacceptable overlap with an individual source even when its total similarity index is below 15%.

The Editorial Office may examine substantial or concentrated matches involving a single article, thesis, preprint, book, dataset description, or other source.

No additional universal numerical threshold for a single source is established by this policy. The relevant assessment concerns whether the matched material is adequately attributed, scientifically justified, and consistent with the manuscript's claim of originality.

2.4 Threshold Compliance and Editorial Judgment

The threshold and complete-report requirements are maintained in accordance with the journal's official Double-Blind Peer Review and Similarity Report Requirements.

3. Screening Process

Similarity screening forms part of the journal's initial editorial assessment and may be repeated at later stages when necessary to verify the originality and integrity of a manuscript.

3.1 Initial Submission Screening

During initial screening, the Editorial Office:

1. Confirms that a complete official PDF similarity report has been submitted.
2. Checks whether the reported overall similarity index is strictly below 15%.
3. Reviews the correspondence between the report and the submitted manuscript.
4. Examines potentially significant source matches where necessary.
5. Considers disclosed preprints, previous publications, and other potentially overlapping material.
6. Determines whether the manuscript may proceed, requires technical correction, or warrants additional editorial evaluation.

3.2 Additional Verification

The Editorial Office may independently verify the submitted report or conduct additional similarity checks using available recognized services when necessary.

Additional verification may be appropriate where the original report appears incomplete, inconsistent with the manuscript, unreliable, altered, or insufficient to resolve significant concerns.

3.3 Screening During Revision

Revised manuscripts may undergo further screening when substantial text has been added or altered, when previous overlap has been identified, or when editors require confirmation that the relevant concerns have been adequately addressed.

The Editorial Office may request an updated official similarity report corresponding to the revised manuscript.

3.4 Pre-Publication and Post-Publication Checks

Further originality checks may be performed before acceptance, during production, or after publication where justified by new information or a credible concern.

Acceptance or publication does not eliminate the journal's responsibility to examine subsequently identified plagiarism or material publication overlap.

3.5 Confidential Handling of Reports

Similarity reports submitted for editorial verification are treated as confidential submission materials. Reports that identify authors, reveal confidential manuscript information, or include sensitive source details should not be disclosed to external reviewers or third parties without appropriate authorization. The Editorial Office may communicate relevant overlap concerns to authors without unnecessarily disclosing protected information.

4. Handling of Detected Similarity

The journal applies proportionate and evidence-based procedures when significant textual similarity or possible plagiarism is identified.

The classifications below describe the editorial significance of the identified issue. They do not establish numerical similarity bands beyond the journal's mandatory overall threshold below 15%.

4.1 Minor Overlap

Minor overlap may involve limited passages of conventional wording, insufficiently differentiated paraphrasing, or citation deficiencies that do not materially compromise the manuscript's original contribution.

Appropriate measures may include:

• Requesting more precise source citations.
• Requiring correct quotation and attribution of reproduced text.
• Asking authors to rewrite inadequately paraphrased passages.
• Requesting clarification of the origin of previously disseminated material.
• Accepting the overlap as legitimate where the evidence supports that conclusion.

A minor textual issue does not automatically constitute academic misconduct. Authors should nevertheless address required corrections before further editorial consideration.

4.2 Moderate or Substantive Overlap

Substantive overlap may involve multiple unattributed passages, extensive inappropriate paraphrasing, substantial reuse of an earlier publication, or other concerns that raise questions about originality but may require additional clarification.

The journal may:

• Suspend further editorial processing while the overlap is assessed.
• Request a detailed written explanation and relevant source materials.
• Require substantial correction of citations, text, or overlapping content where appropriate.
• Request an updated manuscript and official similarity report.
• Seek independent expert advice where necessary.
• Reject a manuscript where the overlap materially undermines its originality or publication suitability.

4.3 Major Overlap or Serious Suspected Plagiarism

Serious concerns may arise where substantial passages, original intellectual contributions, research data, figures, or scientific findings appear to have been appropriated without appropriate attribution or authorization.

The Editorial Office will examine relevant evidence and ordinarily provide the corresponding author an appropriate opportunity to explain the identified concern.

Depending on the findings, the journal may:

• Reject the manuscript without external peer review or further revision.
• Terminate editorial consideration where publication integrity cannot be adequately established.
• Request clarification from additional coauthors.
• Seek independent or institutional assessment where justified.
• Notify a relevant institution or research integrity body when the nature and evidence of the concern warrant such action.
• Consider proportionate future submission safeguards in serious, documented cases, subject to appropriate editorial procedures.

A significant similarity percentage alone is not proof of intentional plagiarism. Conversely, a low overall percentage does not prevent rejection when specific material has been seriously misappropriated.

4.4 Procedural Fairness

Authors may raise reasoned concerns about a decision through the journal's Complaints & Appeals Policy.

5. Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

Health Nexus distinguishes inappropriate reuse of an author's own previously disseminated text from duplicate or redundant publication of scholarly findings.

Authors must accurately disclose relevant prior dissemination and must not misrepresent previously published material as a new, independently developed scholarly contribution.

5.1 Text Recycling

Text recycling, sometimes described as self-plagiarism, involves reusing identical or substantially similar textual material from an author's previous work without sufficiently transparent acknowledgment or justification.

The Editorial Office considers:

• The amount and concentration of reused text.
• Whether the reuse occurs in the Methods, Introduction, Results, Discussion, or Conclusions.
• Whether the earlier publication has been appropriately cited.
• Whether the material is scientifically necessary or consists of conventional methodological descriptions.
• Whether the reuse misrepresents previously published findings as new.
• Whether copyright, licensing, or other permission requirements have been satisfied.
• Whether the submitted manuscript provides a sufficiently distinct scholarly contribution.

Limited reuse of standardized methodological descriptions may be acceptable where sufficiently transparent and justified. Extensive reproduction of previously published results, discussion, or conclusions may present more significant originality concerns.

5.2 Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication occurs where substantially equivalent research findings, data, analyses, or scholarly content are published or submitted for publication without adequate disclosure, authorization, or a legitimate scientific justification.

Authors must not submit the same or substantially equivalent manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals.

Repackaging previously published results with minor textual changes, altered titles, or translated wording does not automatically create an original publication.

5.3 Multiple Publications from the Same Dataset

Multiple publications using the same dataset are not necessarily redundant when each addresses a genuinely distinct research question, provides a meaningful additional analysis, or contributes new scientific knowledge.

Authors must disclose related manuscripts and previously published analyses using the same or substantially overlapping data. The relationship between the works must be transparent, and the contribution of the new manuscript must be clearly distinguishable.

Inappropriate fragmentation of a single study into multiple minimally differentiated publications may be considered redundant publication or misleading presentation of research novelty.

5.4 Preprints, Theses, and Conference Materials

Prior dissemination through a recognized preprint repository, academic thesis, dissertation, conference abstract, institutional report, or similar scholarly channel does not automatically constitute plagiarism or disqualify a manuscript from editorial consideration.

Authors must:

• Disclose relevant prior dissemination at submission.
• Provide an appropriate DOI, permanent link, citation, or other identifying information.
• Explain substantial overlap or the relationship between versions where necessary.
• Comply with relevant copyright and repository requirements.
• Avoid falsely presenting substantially unchanged previously published findings as independent new research.
• Ensure that relevant disclosure to the Editorial Office is complete, even when identifying information is withheld from external reviewers under the double-blind review model.

The Editorial Office assesses the status of earlier dissemination, the applicable publishing rights, the degree of overlap, and the manuscript's scientific contribution.

5.5 Legitimate Secondary Publication

Secondary publication, including publication in another language for a distinct readership, may be considered only where consistent with applicable ICMJE recommendations, prior editorial permissions, transparent attribution, and relevant rights arrangements.

Authors must obtain the necessary agreement from the involved publishers and editors and ensure that readers are clearly informed of the original publication. Such arrangements require explicit editorial consideration and are not automatically permitted.

Additional guidance is provided in the ICMJE Recommendations on Overlapping Publications.

6. Post-Publication Detection

Allegations or evidence of plagiarism may arise after publication through reports from readers, researchers, institutions, copyright holders, authors, or independent editorial assessment.

Health Nexus examines credible post-publication concerns in accordance with its Publication Ethics Policy, Corrections Policy, Retraction Policy, and applicable principles of procedural fairness.

6.1 Initial Assessment

The journal may:

1. Identify the affected publication and the original source or sources.
2. Review the available documentary evidence of overlap.
3. Determine the nature, scale, and scientific significance of the copied or reused material.
4. Seek an explanation and appropriate supporting information from the authors.
5. Consult independent experts or relevant institutions where justified.
6. Determine the appropriate action to protect the integrity of the published record.

6.2 Corrections

A formal Correction may be appropriate where missing attribution, limited textual reuse, or an identifiable source-related error can be adequately resolved and the publication's principal findings remain scientifically reliable.

The correction should explain the affected content and the necessary source acknowledgment, without concealing the original publication history.

6.3 Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate when credible and consequential originality or research integrity concerns remain unresolved and readers should be informed while further assessment is pending.

6.4 Retractions

Retraction may be necessary where extensive plagiarism, serious duplicate publication, or other fundamental publication integrity problems make the article unreliable or unsuitable for continued presentation as a valid scholarly publication.

The journal will ordinarily preserve the original article, clearly identify its retracted status, and publish an accessible Retraction Notice explaining the reason for the action.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly literature and does not automatically establish intentional misconduct.

6.5 Institutional Notification

The journal may refer serious and adequately supported concerns to an appropriate research institution, funding body, research integrity office, or other competent authority where justified.

Institutional notification is a significant action and must be considered in light of the seriousness of the allegations, available evidence, confidentiality requirements, and procedural fairness.

6.6 Preservation of the Scholarly Record

Formal corrections and retractions must be clearly identified, linked to the affected publication, and reflected in appropriate publication records and metadata. Necessary scholarly corrections and research integrity actions are not conditional on payment of an optional administrative service fee and are not restricted by the journal's general period for discretionary administrative changes.

7. Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted manuscripts accurately represent the origin of the intellectual content, supporting research materials, and scholarly contributions.

7.1 Originality and Attribution

Authors must:

• Ensure that the manuscript presents an identifiable original scholarly contribution.
• Provide accurate and complete citations for material derived from other sources.
• Clearly identify direct quotations and appropriately attribute paraphrased content.
• Acknowledge reused or adapted research figures, tables, datasets, software, and other scholarly materials.
• Obtain copyright or licensing permissions where required.
• Disclose relevant previous manuscripts, publications, preprints, theses, and related research outputs.
• Avoid unauthorized duplicate submission and misleading fragmentation of previously published research.
• Review the accuracy, completeness, and relevance of all references and source attributions.

7.2 Similarity Report Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for:

• Obtaining a complete official report from a recognized academic service.
• Ensuring that the report corresponds to the actual submitted manuscript.
• Meeting the required overall similarity threshold strictly below 15%.
• Reviewing relevant matches and correcting inappropriate overlap before submission.
• Avoiding alteration, concealment, or misrepresentation of the report or its relevant settings.
• Providing an updated report or additional explanation where reasonably requested by the Editorial Office.

7.3 AI-Assisted Manuscript Preparation

Authors using generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must comply with the journal's AI & Research Integrity Policy.

Relevant use must be disclosed where required, and AI-assisted text, references, analyses, or other materials must be independently verified by the authors.

AI tools must not be used to disguise copied passages, fabricate citations, misrepresent source material, or conceal inappropriate reuse of previous scholarship.

Automated AI-content detection results are not, by themselves, reliable proof of plagiarism or undisclosed AI use. The journal evaluates specific evidence and the applicable disclosure requirements.

7.4 Collective Author Accountability

All listed authors must approve the manuscript and accept their applicable responsibilities for the integrity of the scholarly work.

The corresponding author coordinates submission documentation and editorial communication, but this responsibility does not remove the individual accountability of other authors for their contributions.

7.5 Cooperation with Editorial Assessment

Authors must respond appropriately to legitimate questions regarding similarity, source attribution, prior dissemination, or possible duplicate publication. Where necessary, they should provide relevant prior manuscripts, research documentation, permissions, or other materials needed for an evidence-based editorial assessment.

8. Editorial Responsibility

The Editorial Office, Editor-in-Chief, and authorized editors are responsible for implementing the journal's plagiarism prevention, screening, assessment, and research integrity procedures.

8.1 Editorial Screening

Editorial responsibilities include:

• Verifying the presence and apparent completeness of mandatory similarity reports.
• Checking compliance with the journal's official numerical threshold.
• Reviewing significant matched sources where appropriate.
• Identifying possible plagiarism, text recycling, redundant publication, and related concerns.
• Distinguishing technical deficiencies from substantive scholarly misconduct allegations.
• Requesting clarification or supporting documentation where necessary.
• Taking proportionate action consistent with the evidence and journal policies.

8.2 Fair and Independent Assessment

Editorial determinations must be based on relevant evidence and the nature of the alleged problem. A similarity score or automated screening result cannot substitute for appropriate scholarly assessment.

Editors should avoid unsupported accusations of intentional plagiarism, particularly when an issue may arise from citation errors, a disclosed preprint, legitimate reuse of methodological text, or another explainable circumstance.

Individuals with a material conflict of interest must not control the assessment of the relevant manuscript or complaint.

8.3 Handling Serious Allegations

Serious allegations may require confidential review of documentary evidence, author explanations, independent specialist input, or consultation with relevant institutions.

Affected authors should ordinarily be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to material allegations. The journal must distinguish findings concerning manuscript reliability from formal institutional determinations of individual research misconduct.

8.4 Editorial Decision Authority

Formal editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor formally authorized to exercise delegated decision-making authority.

Decisions concerning originality and publication integrity must remain independent of Article Processing Charge payments, waiver requests, sponsorship, or other unrelated financial considerations.

8.5 Confidentiality and Information Security

Unpublished manuscripts, official similarity reports, editorial correspondence, and research integrity records must be handled confidentially and securely.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose confidential manuscripts or reports to unauthorized external services, including AI systems. Any authorized processing must comply with applicable privacy, security, and research integrity requirements.

8.6 Publisher Responsibilities

Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG) supports the journal's technical screening infrastructure, editorial administration, confidentiality safeguards, and implementation of necessary publication integrity measures. The publisher must respect independent academic editorial judgment while fulfilling its legitimate administrative, legal, and publishing responsibilities.

9. Compliance with Standards

This policy is informed by internationally recognized principles concerning originality, plagiarism, research integrity, responsible citation, duplicate publication, editorial fairness, and maintenance of the scholarly record.

9.1 International Guidance

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Guidance concerning suspected plagiarism in submitted and published manuscripts, text recycling, redundant publication, editorial investigation, and proportionate corrective action. COPE Official Website
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Recommendations concerning overlapping publications, duplicate submissions, preprints, acceptable secondary publication, research integrity, and editorial responsibilities. ICMJE Overlapping Publications
• Responsible Source Attribution: Appropriate scholarly citation, accurate representation of existing research, lawful use of copyrighted material, and transparent documentation of prior dissemination.
• Applicable Research and Legal Requirements: Institutional research integrity procedures, intellectual property obligations, publication agreements, data protection rules, and other relevant standards.

9.2 Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy must be interpreted consistently with the journal's Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics Policy, Publication Ethics Requirements, AI & Research Integrity Policy, Copyright & Licensing Policy, Corrections Policy, Retraction Policy, and Complaints & Appeals Policy.

The official mandatory similarity-report submission requirements remain applicable independently of the scientific and ethical evaluation of individual source matches.

9.3 International Guidance and Institutional Status

References to COPE, ICMJE, or other organizations identify guidance informing the journal's editorial standards. They do not independently establish formal membership, accreditation, certification, endorsement, or database indexing status.

9.4 Policy Review

Health Nexus may periodically review this policy to reflect developments in similarity-screening technologies, academic integrity, AI-assisted research, text recycling, preprint practices, intellectual property, and international publishing standards. Material amendments should be communicated transparently and coordinated with related journal policies.