The responsible use of scholarly sources is particularly important in comparative philosophy, religious studies, theology, intellectual history, and textual scholarship. Research in these disciplines frequently involves the interpretation of primary texts, translations, commentaries, established philosophical arguments, and concepts transmitted across different linguistic and cultural traditions. Authors must distinguish their own contributions from the words, ideas, interpretations, and research materials of others.

CPRT recognises that legitimate scholarly research necessarily engages earlier publications and may involve appropriate quotation, paraphrase, textual comparison, translation, and discussion of established arguments. Such practices are acceptable when sources are accurately represented, relevant attribution is provided, and any reuse complies with applicable copyright and publication requirements.

This policy establishes the journal's requirements concerning plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundant publication, similarity assessment, minor textual overlap, suspected misconduct before and after publication, author responsibilities, and the protection of scholarly integrity. It should be read alongside CPRT's Publication Ethics Policy, Author Ethical Requirements, AI Use Policy, and post-publication editorial policies.

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when an individual presents another person's words, ideas, arguments, interpretations, translations, research findings, or other intellectual contributions as their own without appropriate attribution. Plagiarism may involve direct copying, inadequately acknowledged paraphrasing, or the misrepresentation of the origin of scholarly material.

Practices that may constitute plagiarism include:

• Direct textual plagiarism: Reproducing sentences, paragraphs, or other substantial passages from an existing source without appropriate quotation, acknowledgement, or citation.
• Inadequately attributed paraphrasing: Rewriting another scholar's work while retaining its distinctive arguments, reasoning, or interpretation without identifying the original source.
• Appropriation of ideas: Presenting an identifiable original concept, theoretical contribution, analytical framework, or distinctive interpretation developed by another scholar as an independent contribution.
• Misappropriation of research structure: Reproducing a distinctive sequence of argumentation, analytical organisation, or research design from another work without adequate acknowledgement where that structure represents a substantive intellectual contribution.
• Translation plagiarism: Translating another person's scholarly writing or original intellectual contribution into a different language and presenting it without appropriate attribution.
• Misappropriation of textual scholarship: Using another researcher's original translation, transcription, textual reconstruction, annotations, or critical interpretation without identifying the relevant contribution.
• Unacknowledged third-party contributions: Presenting substantive scholarly material prepared by another person as the author's own work without appropriate authorship recognition, disclosure, or acknowledgement.
• AI-assisted concealment of sources: Using artificial intelligence to paraphrase, translate, reorganise, or otherwise transform another person's work in order to conceal its provenance or avoid proper attribution.

Plagiarism in Philosophical and Religious Scholarship

In comparative philosophical and religious research, plagiarism may occur even when relatively little text has been reproduced. The unacknowledged appropriation of a distinctive philosophical argument, comparative interpretation, textual discovery, or original conceptual relationship may represent a significant violation of academic integrity.

Authors must take particular care when using translated philosophical texts, religious scriptures, manuscript editions, historical commentaries, and scholarly reconstructions. Distinctions must be maintained between the original source, the translator's or editor's intellectual contribution, established scholarly interpretation, and the author's independent analysis.

The citation of an original philosophical text does not necessarily acknowledge a modern scholar's distinctive translation or interpretation of that text. Where a manuscript relies on such an interpretation, the relevant scholarly contribution must also be attributed.

Related Forms of Research Misconduct

Fabrication and falsification are related but distinct research-integrity violations. The invention of nonexistent publications, quotations, historical documents, or research evidence does not necessarily constitute plagiarism, but such practices are prohibited under CPRT's Publication Ethics Policy.

Plagiarism may coexist with fabrication, false attribution, authorship misrepresentation, copyright infringement, or other forms of misconduct. The journal considers the specific conduct and available evidence when determining the appropriate editorial response.

Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

Self-plagiarism, sometimes described as inappropriate text recycling or undisclosed reuse, occurs when authors reuse substantial elements of their own previously disseminated or published work without sufficient acknowledgement and present the reused material in a misleading manner as an entirely new contribution.

Redundant publication occurs when substantially the same scholarly work is published more than once without appropriate disclosure, attribution, editorial authorisation, or another legitimate basis for republication. The concern extends beyond duplicated language to substantial overlap in research questions, evidence, analysis, arguments, and conclusions.

Practices requiring particular attention include:

• Undisclosed republication: Submitting an article that substantially reproduces previously published research without identifying the earlier work.
• Substantial text recycling: Reusing significant passages from the author's earlier publications without appropriate acknowledgement where this misrepresents the originality of the submission.
• Repetition of research contributions: Presenting essentially the same theoretical argument, interpretation, or research findings as a new scholarly contribution without adequate disclosure.
• Undisclosed translated republication: Publishing a substantially equivalent version of an earlier article in another language without appropriate attribution, editorial authorisation, or applicable rights clearance.
• Inadequately distinguished derivative work: Submitting a manuscript derived from an earlier publication without adequately explaining its relationship to the original and its substantive new contribution.
• Simultaneous submission: Submitting substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal for concurrent editorial consideration, contrary to CPRT's exclusive-submission requirements.

Legitimate Reuse and Continuing Scholarship

CPRT recognises that scholarly research develops cumulatively. Authors may build upon their own earlier arguments, revisit previously studied texts, extend a comparative framework, or incorporate limited material from earlier publications where such reuse is appropriately acknowledged and consistent with copyright and publication requirements.

When a manuscript is derived from earlier research, authors must identify the relevant prior work and explain the substantive differences between the earlier contribution and the new submission. Additional literature alone, minor linguistic revision, or changes in presentation do not necessarily establish sufficient scholarly originality.

The journal evaluates the significance of the new research question, conceptual argument, textual evidence, methodological approach, interpretation, or conclusion. The presence of legitimate continuity between publications is not itself a violation.

Preprints, Conference Papers, and Theses

Prior dissemination through preprint repositories, conference presentations, working papers, institutional theses, or dissertations does not automatically constitute prohibited redundant publication. The journal considers the nature of the previous dissemination, the relationship between versions, any applicable rights, and the manuscript's scholarly contribution.

Authors must disclose relevant prior versions at submission and provide sufficient information for the editorial office to assess publication history and originality. Where a conference contribution or other earlier work has already been formally published, the status and extent of the previous publication require particular attention.

The use of previously published text or illustrations may also require permission or an applicable licence, even when the earlier work was written by the same author. Accurate citation does not by itself resolve all copyright or reuse restrictions.

Plagiarism Detection

CPRT may assess submitted manuscripts for potential plagiarism, inappropriate textual overlap, or redundant publication through editorial examination and available similarity-assessment tools. Such assessments may occur during initial screening, external peer review, revision, or subsequent editorial consideration.

Similarity reports are screening aids rather than conclusive findings of misconduct. A numerical similarity percentage does not independently establish whether plagiarism has occurred. The significance of overlap depends on its context, source, character, attribution, and relationship to the manuscript's intellectual contribution.

Editorial Screening Methods

Where appropriate, the editorial team may:

• Compare manuscript passages with identifiable published publications, academic repositories, or other relevant source materials.
• Examine the attribution and presentation of quotations, paraphrases, translations, footnotes, and bibliographic references.
• Assess whether apparent overlap reflects common terminology, conventional descriptions, appropriately cited material, or potentially inappropriate reuse.
• Review relevant earlier publications by the same authors to determine whether substantial content or intellectual contributions have been repeated without disclosure.
• Request clarification from authors concerning disputed passages, prior versions, source attribution, or the provenance of particular research materials.
• Seek independent scholarly advice where allegations concern specialised philosophical arguments, classical texts, translations, or other matters requiring subject expertise.

Interpretation of Similarity Results

Similarity-assessment tools may identify appropriately cited quotations, reference lists, commonly used academic phrases, standard definitions, or public-domain material. The inclusion of such content in a similarity report does not automatically indicate unethical conduct.

Conversely, a low similarity percentage does not exclude plagiarism. Conceptual appropriation, translated plagiarism, or the unacknowledged adoption of a distinctive philosophical interpretation may not be detected reliably by ordinary text-comparison methods.

CPRT does not treat a universal numerical similarity threshold as an independent definition of acceptable or unacceptable scholarship. Editorial evaluation considers the location, nature, significance, and attribution of the overlapping material.

Automated AI-content detection is likewise not conclusive evidence that a manuscript contains plagiarism or otherwise violates the journal's AI Use Policy. Concerns involving AI-assisted appropriation must be assessed through identifiable sources, relevant manuscript content, and appropriate independent evaluation.

Screening must respect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers must not submit protected manuscript content to external tools or services in ways that violate the journal's confidentiality and AI-use requirements.

Minor Overlap

Limited textual overlap may arise legitimately from the use of standard academic terminology, established definitions, conventional descriptions, properly acknowledged quotations, bibliographic information, or other material whose repetition does not misrepresent the originality of a manuscript.

In assessing minor overlap, CPRT considers:

• Extent: The amount and distribution of overlapping material within the manuscript.
• Nature: Whether the material consists of standard terminology, conventional exposition, distinctive prose, original arguments, or other substantive intellectual contributions.
• Attribution: Whether the relevant source is properly identified and whether the presentation adequately distinguishes borrowed material from the author's own analysis.
• Location: Whether the overlap concerns background discussion, footnotes, descriptive passages, or the central argument and conclusions.
• Scholarly significance: Whether the overlapping material represents an essential original contribution of another scholar or substantially duplicates the author's earlier work.
• Prior dissemination: Whether the material has appeared in a preprint, thesis, conference paper, formally published article, or another identifiable version.

Legitimate Repetition in Textual Scholarship

Scholarship in philosophy and religious studies frequently discusses widely transmitted philosophical statements, canonical passages, historical terminology, and established textual formulations. The recurrence of such material may be unavoidable or necessary for accurate interpretation.

Properly identified quotations from primary sources and appropriately attributed material from scholarly translations or editions should not be treated as plagiarism merely because the same wording appears elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the public-domain status of a classical text does not automatically permit the unacknowledged use of a modern translator's original wording, an editor's scholarly annotations, or another researcher's distinctive interpretation. Applicable attribution and reuse requirements remain relevant.

Editorial Treatment of Limited Overlap

Where limited overlap results from incomplete citation, unclear quotation boundaries, or another correctable problem, the editorial office may request clarification or appropriate revision before making a final determination.

A seemingly short passage may nevertheless require serious attention when it contains an identifiable and central intellectual contribution appropriated without attribution. The seriousness of a concern must not be determined solely by the number of repeated words.

Suspected Plagiarism Before and After Publication

CPRT evaluates suspected plagiarism and redundant publication through fair, evidence-based editorial procedures. Potential concerns may be identified during initial screening, external peer review, manuscript revision, or after publication.

The submission of an allegation, the identification of textual similarity, or an automated screening result does not independently establish misconduct. The editorial team must consider the nature of the evidence, the source material, and the relevant explanations before determining an appropriate response.

Concerns Identified Before Publication

Where potential plagiarism or substantial undisclosed overlap is identified in a submitted manuscript, the editorial office may follow these procedures:

1. Preliminary identification. The editorial office identifies the relevant manuscript passages, suspected source materials, and the nature of the possible overlap or appropriation.
2. Source verification. The responsible editor examines the available original publications, quotations, translations, or other materials and assesses whether the concern is supported by identifiable evidence.
3. Author clarification. Where material concerns remain, the authors are ordinarily contacted and provided with an appropriate opportunity to explain the relevant passages, prior dissemination, citation practices, or other circumstances.
4. Assessment of seriousness. The editor considers whether the issue represents legitimate reuse, a correctable attribution problem, substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, or another relevant ethical concern.
5. Independent consultation where necessary. Qualified specialists may be consulted where the assessment requires expertise in philosophical argumentation, original-language sources, translation, textual criticism, or another specialised area.
6. Editorial determination. The Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately authorised independent editor determines whether the manuscript may proceed, requires correction or clarification, should be rejected, or warrants further ethical investigation.

Possible Pre-Publication Outcomes

Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the concern, appropriate action may include:

• Permitting editorial or peer-review consideration to continue where the concern is not substantiated.
• Requesting corrected citations, quotation formatting, clearer attribution, or additional disclosure of earlier versions.
• Requiring substantive revision where an attribution or originality problem can appropriately be resolved.
• Suspending consideration while a significant unresolved ethical concern is examined.
• Rejecting the manuscript where serious plagiarism, unacceptable redundant publication, or another substantial ethical violation is established.
• Referring a serious and substantiated concern to an appropriate institution or other responsible body where further investigation is warranted.

Immediate rejection may be justified where sufficiently clear evidence establishes a serious violation. However, a manuscript must not be characterised as involving proven misconduct solely on the basis of an unexplained similarity score or an unverified allegation.

Referral to an author's institution is not an automatic consequence of suspected plagiarism. Such action should reflect the seriousness of the concern, the available evidence, the need for additional investigative authority, and the journal's ethical responsibilities.

Concerns Identified After Publication

When potential plagiarism, redundant publication, or another significant attribution problem is identified after publication, CPRT undertakes an appropriate editorial assessment of the reported concern. The journal may contact the authors, examine relevant original sources, consult independent experts, or seek information from appropriate institutions where necessary.

Depending on the findings, the journal may consider:

• Correction: A formal notice addressing an identifiable attribution or publication error where the article's principal scholarly contribution remains sufficiently reliable.
• Expression of Concern: A notice informing readers of credible, substantial unresolved concerns where the available evidence does not yet permit a definitive conclusion.
• Retraction: A formal notice identifying a publication affected by serious plagiarism, substantial redundant publication, material unreliability, or another established ground warranting retraction.
• No formal action: An editorial determination that the reported concern does not establish an error or violation requiring alteration of the scholarly record.

A correction is not automatically sufficient for serious intellectual appropriation, just as retraction is not automatically required for every incomplete citation. The editorial response must reflect the nature and consequences of the established problem.

Published correction, concern, and retraction notices must be identifiable and linked appropriately to the affected articles. Where retraction is warranted, the original publication will ordinarily remain accessible but clearly marked as retracted, subject to any exceptional legal or ethical restrictions.

Further details are provided in CPRT's Corrections Policy and Retractions, Corrections & Expressions of Concern Policy. The journal's procedures are intended to preserve the accuracy of the scholarly record rather than impose unsupported personal allegations or disproportionate penalties.

Responsibility of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts accurately distinguish original intellectual contributions from material derived from existing scholarship. This obligation extends to research undertaken independently, collaboratively, through commissioned assistance, or with the support of digital and artificial intelligence technologies.

All authors must ensure:

• Accurate source attribution: Relevant quotations, ideas, arguments, interpretations, translations, and research materials are acknowledged appropriately.
• Correct quotation practice: Direct quotations are clearly distinguished from original prose, with sufficiently precise references to their sources.
• Responsible paraphrasing: Paraphrased material accurately represents its source and includes appropriate acknowledgement of the original intellectual contribution.
• Independent verification: References, publication details, original-language passages, and other scholarly evidence are checked against reliable and identifiable sources.
• Disclosure of prior work: Relevant earlier versions, related publications, and substantial reuse of the authors' own scholarship are identified accurately.
• Original scholarly contribution: The manuscript offers an identifiable research contribution and does not misleadingly present previously established or published material as wholly new.
• Appropriate permissions: Material subject to copyright, licence conditions, archival restrictions, or other applicable rights is used lawfully and with the necessary permission where required.
• Accurate authorship: Substantive contributions by human collaborators are recognised in accordance with the journal's authorship criteria.
• Responsible AI use: AI-assisted activities are appropriately disclosed, and all AI-assisted quotations, paraphrases, translations, references, and claims are subject to independent human verification.

Citation and Reference Requirements

CPRT requires authors to follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, Notes and Bibliography system, as established in the journal's Submission Guidelines. Citations must provide sufficient information for readers to identify and, where reasonably possible, verify the relevant materials.

Where authors use classical philosophical or religious texts, they should identify the editions, translations, translators, commentators, and relevant textual locations as appropriate. Established canonical reference systems may be used where suitable for the primary materials being discussed.

Authors should not cite a source as though they had consulted it directly when their knowledge of the material derives only from another publication. Secondary citations should be represented transparently, and the original source should be consulted where feasible and material to the argument.

AI-Assisted Writing and Source Attribution

The use of generative AI, automated paraphrasing tools, machine translation, or other AI-assisted technologies does not remove an author's obligation to acknowledge the origin of existing scholarly material. AI-produced wording must not be used to obscure plagiarism or misrepresent another person's intellectual work as the author's own.

Authors must disclose AI assistance in accordance with CPRT's AI Use Policy and explain its purpose and extent as required. AI systems cannot be listed as authors, and the human authors remain responsible for the scholarly accuracy and originality of the completed manuscript.

An AI-generated bibliography or source summary must not be treated as evidence that a cited publication exists or has been accurately represented. Authors must verify references, quotations, translations, and substantive claims independently.

Responsibility Following Submission

The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have approved the submitted manuscript and understand their responsibilities concerning source attribution and originality. Where a material problem is identified during review, authors should provide timely clarification and undertake appropriate correction where requested.

Authors who discover a substantial attribution error, undisclosed overlap, or another significant problem after publication must notify the editorial office promptly and cooperate with the appropriate assessment and corrective procedures.

Failure to fulfil these obligations may constitute a breach of publication ethics where the nature and seriousness of the conduct warrant such a determination. The journal distinguishes correctable mistakes from substantiated misconduct when deciding how to respond.

Commitment to Scholarly Integrity

CPRT regards intellectual honesty and responsible attribution as essential foundations of credible research. Plagiarism undermines the recognition of scholarly contributions, misrepresents the provenance of knowledge, and compromises trust in academic communication.

The journal is committed to fair and consistent editorial treatment of concerns concerning plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and redundant publication. Such concerns must be assessed according to identifiable evidence, relevant scholarly conventions, and the nature of the research under consideration.

CPRT's commitment includes:

• Protection of original scholarship: Recognition of legitimate intellectual contributions across philosophical, religious, linguistic, and cultural traditions.
• Accurate attribution: Clear identification of borrowed material, prior interpretations, translations, and other relevant scholarly sources.
• Contextual editorial judgement: Evaluation of suspected plagiarism according to intellectual substance and evidential significance rather than numerical similarity alone.
• Fair procedures: Appropriate consideration of source evidence, author explanations, and the distinction between misconduct, honest error, and legitimate scholarly disagreement.
• Independent decision-making: Editorial outcomes based on scholarly integrity and applicable publication standards, without inappropriate financial, institutional, or personal influence.
• Responsible maintenance of the scholarly record: Appropriate use of corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions where warranted by verified post-publication concerns.

Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other relevant parties may report credible concerns about plagiarism, source misattribution, or redundant publication to the CPRT Editorial Office. Reports should identify the manuscript or published article concerned and, where possible, provide relevant source references, comparative passages, or other supporting information.

Reports will be assessed according to their substance and available evidence. The editorial office may seek clarification or additional documentation before determining whether an investigation or editorial action is appropriate.

These requirements complement the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Author Ethical Requirements, Submission Guidelines, AI Use Policy, Complaints & Appeals Policy, Corrections Policy, and Retractions, Corrections & Expressions of Concern Policy. Where necessary, the relevant procedures are applied together to ensure fair investigation and appropriate protection of the scholarly record.