Three Teachings Studies: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism (TTS) is committed to protecting originality, accurate attribution, scholarly transparency, and the integrity of the academic record. The journal prohibits plagiarism, misleading reuse of previously published work, unauthorized appropriation of scholarly materials, and other practices that misrepresent the origin or contribution of research. Authors must conduct a preliminary similarity check before submission and ensure that the total similarity index is below 15%, excluding references and bibliography. The editorial office conducts randomized similarity spot checks and targeted investigations where appropriate. Similarity reports are used as screening and evaluation tools; a numerical score alone does not establish plagiarism or determine the scholarly originality of a manuscript.

Purpose and Scope of the Policy

This policy establishes the journal's requirements concerning plagiarism, textual similarity, improper paraphrasing, translation plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate text recycling, and related concerns involving scholarly originality. It explains the responsibilities of authors and the editorial office, the interpretation of similarity reports, the treatment of historical and religious source materials, and the procedures applicable when potential violations are identified.

TTS publishes scholarship involving philosophical arguments, religious scriptures, classical commentaries, archival documents, textual criticism, translation, intellectual history, ethnography, and other forms of academic inquiry. The journal recognizes that different research methods and source traditions may produce different patterns of legitimate textual similarity. Its screening procedures must therefore be applied with appropriate attention to the manuscript's language, subject, research method, documentary materials, and scholarly purpose.

The policy applies to Research Articles, Review Articles, Book Reviews, Translation and Annotation, Forum Contributions, Documents and Textual Notes, Lectures, and other submissions considered by the journal. All scholarly contributions must demonstrate appropriate attribution and comply with the applicable originality and publication ethics requirements.

Definition and Forms of Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, arguments, findings, translations, interpretations, data, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment. It may concern published or unpublished material and may occur through direct reproduction, paraphrasing, translation, adaptation, or other forms of uncredited use.

Prohibited practices include, but are not limited to:

• Direct Plagiarism: Reproducing substantial passages or distinctive expressions from another source without appropriate quotation, citation, and attribution.
• Improper Paraphrasing: Replacing isolated words or changing sentence structure while retaining another author's distinctive expression, reasoning, or intellectual contribution without adequate acknowledgment.
• Mosaic Plagiarism: Combining closely adapted passages, ideas, arguments, or interpretations from multiple sources in a way that conceals their original authorship.
• Plagiarism of Ideas and Interpretations: Appropriating identifiable arguments, hypotheses, philosophical interpretations, analytical frameworks, or original findings without appropriate citation.
• Translation Plagiarism: Translating another person's scholarly writing, interpretation, or original research into a different language and presenting it as an independently developed contribution without disclosure and acknowledgment.
• Source and Documentary Misappropriation: Reusing unpublished transcriptions, archival discoveries, annotated source collections, research data, or other original scholarly materials without appropriate authorization or attribution.
• Visual and Multimedia Plagiarism: Presenting another person's figures, tables, photographs, maps, diagrams, recordings, or other protected materials as original without appropriate acknowledgment or required permissions.
• Misleading Reuse of Previous Work: Reproducing substantial portions of an author's own previously published text, analysis, translation, or findings without disclosure when such reuse misrepresents the originality or publication history of the submission.
• Fabricated or Misleading Citations: Inventing bibliographic references, misrepresenting the existence or content of cited works, attributing material to incorrect sources, or using false citations to conceal uncredited borrowing.

Proper citation alone may not be sufficient to justify extensive verbatim reproduction or substantial reuse of previously published material. Authors must also consider accurate quotation, originality of contribution, applicable permissions, and whether the submitted manuscript creates a misleading impression of novelty.

Mandatory Pre-Submission Similarity Check

Authors are required to conduct a preliminary similarity check before submitting a manuscript to TTS. The check should be carried out using a suitable academic similarity-detection service capable of evaluating the language and type of scholarly material involved, insofar as such coverage is available.

Required Total Similarity Index: Below 15%.
Excluded from the Calculation: References and bibliography.
Author Responsibility: Mandatory preliminary screening before submission.
Editorial Screening: Randomized spot checks and targeted verification where appropriate.
Interpretation: Similarity percentages are screening indicators and are not independent findings of plagiarism.

For the purposes of the journal's threshold, below 15% means that a reported score of 15% or higher does not satisfy the ordinary submission requirement. Authors should review their reports carefully, verify the exclusion of references and bibliography, and address inappropriate or insufficiently documented overlap before submission.

A separate similarity report is not routinely required as a mandatory attachment to every submission. However, authors should retain their screening results and may be asked to provide a report, relevant source materials, or an explanation when the editorial office identifies a potential concern.

Authors should not manipulate citations, remove necessary source documentation, conceal legitimate quotations, or alter accurately reproduced classical texts solely to achieve a lower numerical similarity score. The purpose of preliminary screening is to identify potentially problematic overlap and support responsible scholarly preparation.

Understanding and Interpreting Similarity Reports

Similarity-detection systems identify textual matches or related patterns of overlap between a manuscript and materials available within their comparison databases. They do not independently determine whether the matched material is properly attributed, legally reusable, academically justified, or plagiarized.

Editorial assessment may consider:

• The sources from which matched passages originate.
• The length, frequency, concentration, and location of matched material.
• Whether quotations, source texts, and borrowed interpretations have been attributed correctly.
• Whether the overlap involves standard terminology, conventional language, or distinctive scholarly argumentation.
• Whether the manuscript reproduces substantial material from the authors' own previous publications.
• Whether the detected material represents a genuine concern involving originality, copyright, or redundant publication.
• Whether limitations of language coverage, text recognition, source indexing, or comparison settings affect the report.

A low similarity score does not demonstrate that a manuscript is free from plagiarism, particularly when copied ideas, translated materials, unpublished research, or inadequately indexed sources are involved. Similarly, a high score does not independently demonstrate plagiarism when the manuscript contains properly documented classical passages, extensive textual comparison, or other legitimately repeated materials.

The journal's below-15% requirement remains an ordinary submission threshold. Where a report is affected by legitimate source reproduction or technical limitations, authors should explain the circumstances rather than conceal or distort the material. The editorial office may review the evidence, request clarification or a corrected report, and determine the appropriate editorial response. Such consideration does not constitute automatic exemption from the stated threshold.

TTS does not establish an additional universal percentage limit for matches to a single source. Nevertheless, concentrated overlap with a particular work may raise substantial originality or attribution concerns even when the total similarity index remains below 15%.

Classical Scriptures, Canonical Texts, and Legitimate Textual Overlap

Research involving Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions frequently requires the quotation, comparison, translation, or critical examination of classical texts. Such materials may contain widely reproduced passages, recurring traditional expressions, standardized canonical references, and historically established terminology.

TTS recognizes that the accurate reproduction of historical source material may be central to the scholarly contribution of a philosophical analysis, philological study, textual edition, or annotated translation.

Legitimate overlap may arise from:

• Properly identified passages from Confucian classics, Buddhist scriptures, Daoist texts, and related historical writings.
• Classical quotations presented for close reading, translation, philosophical analysis, or historical interpretation.
• Textual variants reproduced for comparison among manuscripts, editions, inscriptions, or canonical collections.
• Established religious terminology, technical vocabulary, canonical titles, and conventional source identifiers.
• Properly attributed historical documents and archival passages necessary to a documentary or philological argument.
• Standardized descriptions or methodological expressions that cannot reasonably be reformulated without loss of precision.

Authors must identify the relevant sources, editions, canonical references, translations, or manuscript witnesses as accurately as practicable. Reproduced source material should be clearly distinguished from the author's own interpretation, commentary, translation, or editorial reconstruction.

The historical age or public-domain status of an original text does not automatically remove obligations concerning attribution, scholarly accuracy, modern editorial contributions, translations, images, or source-specific reproduction rights.

Editors should assess the nature and purpose of such overlap rather than treating legitimate classical quotations as prima facie evidence of misconduct. However, the reproduction of source materials must not be used to conceal the absence of an identifiable original scholarly contribution.

Translation, Multilingual Scholarship, and Cross-Language Plagiarism

TTS accepts manuscripts in English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. Because similarity-detection systems vary in their linguistic coverage and ability to identify translated or adapted material, automated screening may not detect all forms of cross-language plagiarism.

Authors working across languages must observe the following requirements:

• Identify the original sources of translated passages and existing scholarly translations.
• Distinguish newly prepared translations from translations adapted or reproduced from previously published works.
• Acknowledge interpretations, arguments, and research findings borrowed from scholarship written in another language.
• Disclose relevant prior publication of substantially the same manuscript or analysis in another language.
• Identify significant editorial modifications, source-language uncertainties, and interpretive decisions where required for scholarly accuracy.
• Verify the accuracy and provenance of translations prepared or assisted by automated tools.

Translating previously published academic research into another language without proper disclosure does not create an independent original publication. The editorial office considers whether a translated or substantially adapted work makes a genuinely new scholarly contribution and whether the relevant publication rights and permissions have been addressed.

A low automated similarity score must not be relied upon as evidence that translated materials are original. Editorial assessment may involve manual comparison, specialist review, or requests for original-language source documentation.

Text Recycling, Self-Plagiarism, and Redundant Publication

Authors must not represent previously published research as a new contribution through undisclosed reuse of substantial text, evidence, analysis, figures, translations, or findings. Concerns commonly described as self-plagiarism may involve inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, or inadequate disclosure of earlier work.

In assessing reuse of an author's previous work, TTS considers:

• Whether the earlier publication or dissemination has been identified accurately.
• Whether the new manuscript provides a substantial and clearly identifiable scholarly contribution.
• Whether the extent and location of reused material are justified by the research.
• Whether the reuse conceals substantially identical arguments, findings, translations, or conclusions.
• Whether applicable copyright, licensing, and publication permissions have been respected.
• Whether the manuscript's publication history has been disclosed to the editorial office.

Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions, necessary historical background, or appropriately attributed source material may be legitimate. By contrast, extensive undisclosed repetition of an author's earlier analysis or conclusions may constitute redundant publication even when the wording has been substantially altered.

Prior dissemination through theses, dissertations, preprint repositories, conference presentations, or working papers does not automatically prohibit subsequent journal publication. However, authors must disclose relevant earlier versions and explain substantial overlap when necessary.

Dividing substantially the same research into multiple minimally differentiated publications or submitting substantially overlapping manuscripts to different journals without disclosure is inconsistent with the journal's originality requirements.

Artificial Intelligence and Similarity Evasion

Artificial intelligence and automated writing tools must not be used to conceal plagiarism, misrepresent authorship, fabricate references, or disguise the reuse of previously published scholarly work.

The following practices are unacceptable:

• Using automated paraphrasing or translation to disguise copied material without acknowledging its source.
• Generating fictitious bibliographic references, quotations, archival records, or historical source descriptions.
• Presenting AI-generated interpretations or claims as independently verified scholarly findings without appropriate examination.
• Concealing material AI assistance where disclosure is required by the journal's publication ethics standards.
• Manipulating text to evade similarity detection while retaining another person's distinctive arguments or intellectual contributions without acknowledgment.

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all submitted material, including research content generated or modified with automated assistance. Material AI use must be disclosed where required, and relevant outputs must be independently verified.

AI-detection scores are not equivalent to plagiarism-detection results and must not be treated as conclusive evidence that misconduct has occurred. The journal evaluates specific evidence of misrepresentation, inadequate attribution, fabrication, or other ethical violations rather than relying solely on automated classification.

Editorial Screening and Verification Procedures

TTS applies author-led preliminary similarity screening supported by randomized editorial spot checks and targeted verification. The editorial office does not represent that every manuscript is automatically examined using the same similarity-detection service.

The editorial process may include the following stages:

1. Author Pre-Submission Verification: Authors perform the required preliminary similarity check, review relevant matched passages, and ensure that the manuscript satisfies the below-15% submission threshold.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment: The editorial office assesses the manuscript's completeness, originality declarations, source documentation, citation practices, and relevant research integrity requirements.
3. Randomized or Targeted Screening: Selected submissions may be checked using appropriate similarity-detection tools, manual source comparison, bibliographic verification, or other relevant methods.
4. Contextual Examination: Editors assess the sources, extent, concentration, attribution, and scholarly purpose of identified overlap, taking account of legitimate quotations and disciplinary conventions.
5. Author Clarification: Where appropriate, the editorial office may request a similarity report, source documentation, explanation, correction, or revised manuscript.
6. Editorial Determination: Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the issue, the manuscript may proceed to review, be returned for correction, be declined, or undergo further research integrity assessment.
7. Further Action Where Necessary: Significant concerns discovered during peer review, production, or after publication may be considered under the journal's publication ethics procedures.

An author may be requested to explain why particular matched passages are necessary for a historical, philological, translation-related, or comparative argument. Such explanations should identify the materials accurately and demonstrate their relationship to the manuscript's original scholarly contribution.

Editorial review of similarity concerns is not limited to numerical percentages. A manuscript that meets the numerical requirement may still be subject to further investigation when credible evidence of uncredited borrowing, redundant publication, fabrication, or other misconduct arises.

Possible Editorial Actions Before Publication

When originality or similarity concerns arise before publication, the editorial office selects an appropriate response according to the available evidence, seriousness of the issue, and stage of editorial processing.

• No Further Action: Where the identified overlap is adequately attributed, justified, and consistent with applicable requirements, the manuscript may continue through the normal editorial process.
• Clarification Request: Authors may be asked to explain matched material, identify relevant sources, disclose previous dissemination, or provide a similarity report.
• Correction or Revision: Authors may be required to correct citations, clarify quotations, reduce inappropriate duplication, or revise inadequately attributed passages.
• Return for Noncompliance: A manuscript that fails to satisfy the ordinary similarity threshold or related preparation requirements may be returned before external review.
• Editorial Rejection: Substantial uncredited reproduction, misleading duplicate publication, serious source misrepresentation, or other significant unresolved originality concerns may justify rejection.
• Further Ethical Assessment: Credible allegations of serious misconduct may be examined through the journal's established publication ethics procedures and, where appropriate, referred for independent or institutional consideration.

Failure to satisfy a numerical submission threshold does not, by itself, constitute a finding of plagiarism or intentional misconduct. Likewise, editorial rejection for significant integrity concerns should be based on the substance of the issue rather than a similarity percentage alone.

Plagiarism and Originality Concerns After Publication

TTS remains responsible for the integrity of its publication record after an article has been released. Credible concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, translation misappropriation, fabricated sources, or other serious originality problems may be assessed regardless of when they are identified.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:

• Request a written explanation or supporting evidence from the author or authors.
• Consult qualified independent specialists concerning the disputed material.
• Publish a correction where an identifiable problem can be remedied without fundamentally undermining the article's central scholarly contribution.
• Issue an expression of concern where serious unresolved questions concerning the reliability or integrity of the publication warrant notification to readers.
• Retract an article when substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, unreliable evidence, or other serious circumstances justify retraction under the journal's publication ethics procedures.
• Communicate with relevant institutions, publishers, rights holders, or competent authorities when such contact is appropriate and supported by the circumstances.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions serve different purposes and must not be treated as interchangeable responses. The appropriate action depends on the nature, extent, and consequences of the identified problem.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly literature rather than to function solely as punishment. Where an article is retracted, its original publication record and an explanatory notice should ordinarily remain accessible, subject to exceptional legal, privacy, or safety requirements.

The journal evaluates post-publication concerns under its Publication Ethics Policy, taking account of relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Fair Assessment, Author Responses, and Appeals

Allegations of plagiarism or related misconduct must be assessed fairly, impartially, and with appropriate attention to the available evidence. An accusation or numerical similarity result does not independently establish intentional wrongdoing.

Where substantive allegations arise, affected authors should ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to respond, identify relevant sources, clarify the publication history of disputed material, and provide documentary evidence.

Editors and other individuals involved in evaluating concerns must disclose material conflicts of interest. Where the responsible editor's independence may be compromised, an appropriately independent person should be assigned to consider the matter.

Authors may request reconsideration when they identify a material factual error, significant procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or other substantive concern affecting the fairness of the decision. Appeals should explain the relevant grounds and include supporting documentation where available.

Scholarly disagreement concerning the interpretation of a classical text, religious teaching, philosophical argument, or historical source does not automatically constitute plagiarism or misconduct. The journal distinguishes legitimate academic controversy from evidence of improper appropriation or research integrity violations.

Responsibilities of Authors and Co-Authors

All authors share responsibility for ensuring that the submitted manuscript complies with the journal's originality, citation, disclosure, and ethical requirements. The corresponding author coordinates communication with the editorial office, but this administrative role does not transfer all scholarly responsibility away from the other authors.

Before submission, authors should verify that:

• The manuscript contains an identifiable original scholarly contribution appropriate to the selected category.
• Direct quotations are clearly identified and accurately cited.
• Borrowed interpretations, arguments, ideas, translations, and scholarly findings are appropriately acknowledged.
• Previously published or publicly disseminated versions of related research have been disclosed where relevant.
• Classical texts, translations, editions, and historical documentary sources have been identified accurately.
• All references and citations comply with the mandatory Chicago Notes and Bibliography system.
• Required permissions have been obtained for reused copyrighted material where applicable.
• Material AI assistance has been disclosed where required, and relevant outputs have been independently verified.
• The preliminary similarity check has been completed and the manuscript satisfies the journal's below-15% requirement.
• Any similarity report or relevant supporting evidence can be provided if reasonably requested during editorial assessment.

Additional obligations concerning authorship, conflicts of interest, confidential materials, research participants, and post-publication accountability are specified in the journal's Author Ethical Responsibilities.

Reporting Suspected Plagiarism or Originality Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, academic institutions, and other interested parties may report credible concerns involving plagiarism, improper reuse, translation plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated references, or other originality-related matters.

Reports should include, where available:

• The title, authorship information, or publication details of the manuscript or article concerned.
• Identification of the allegedly copied, reused, or misrepresented source material.
• A description of the specific concern, including relevant passages, source references, or documentary comparisons.
• Relevant supporting materials or other evidence that may assist an independent editorial assessment.

Concerns are assessed according to their substance and evidentiary basis. The journal seeks to maintain appropriate confidentiality, protect good-faith reporting, and avoid premature public conclusions while a matter remains under review.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The journal may decline to pursue allegations that lack a reasonable evidentiary basis or fall outside its responsibilities.

Related Editorial Policies and Guidance

This policy should be read together with the journal's related publication and author requirements:

• Publication Ethics — General publication integrity standards, misconduct assessment, corrections, and retractions.
• Author Ethical Responsibilities — Originality, authorship, disclosure, citation, and ongoing author accountability.
• Submission Guidelines — Manuscript eligibility, submission categories, and preparation requirements.
• Manuscript Formatting Guidelines — Chicago citation requirements, source documentation, and multilingual manuscript preparation.
• Peer Review Policy — Independent evaluation, editorial decisions, confidentiality, and review integrity.
• COPE Core Practices — International guidance concerning responsible scholarly publishing.

The journal's policies are informed by relevant international publication ethics principles. References to external guidance do not constitute a claim of formal membership, accreditation, or endorsement by the organization providing that guidance.

Editorial Contact and Submission Information

Questions concerning similarity screening, attribution, classical source documentation, prior publication, translation reuse, originality requirements, or suspected plagiarism may be directed to the editorial office.

Manuscripts and revised files must be submitted through the journal's official online submission system. Editorial email is available for research integrity reports, policy clarification, and administrative assistance, rather than ordinary manuscript submission.

Author Registration: Create an Author Account

Online Submission System: Access the Journal's Submission System