Kerolex Academic Press (KAP)   |   Applicable to all KAP journals   |   Policy version: October 2026

1. Policy Statement

Kerolex Academic Press (KAP) is committed to originality, responsible scholarship, and transparent editorial decisions across all journals it publishes. KAP does not permit plagiarism, misappropriation of ideas or data, misleading attribution, or unauthorized reuse of copyrighted material. Manuscripts are assessed on their scholarly merit, research integrity, and compliance with journal policies.

Text-similarity screening is a preliminary editorial safeguard, not a substitute for expert review. A numerical similarity score does not, by itself, establish plagiarism or guarantee publication.

2. Scope and Definition of Plagiarism

This policy applies to all manuscript types submitted to KAP journals, including research articles, reviews, short communications, case reports, editorials, figures, tables, supplementary materials, and revised submissions.

Plagiarism includes presenting another person’s wording, ideas, research design, data, analysis, figures, images, or other intellectual contributions as one’s own without appropriate attribution. It may take the form of verbatim copying, patchwork or mosaic copying, unattributed paraphrasing or translation, duplicate or redundant publication, or inappropriate reuse of an author’s previously published work without transparent disclosure and necessary permissions.

3. Screening Method

KAP currently uses Turnitin to screen submitted manuscripts for text similarity before peer review. KAP may repeat screening after revisions and before final acceptance when needed. Reports are interpreted by the handling editor and, where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editorial ethics representative.

KAP conducts screening through appropriately authorized access and applies confidentiality and repository settings appropriate to unpublished manuscripts. The publisher may adopt other recognized screening tools in the future without changing the principle of human editorial assessment.

4. Preliminary Similarity Screening Benchmarks

KAP sets the following internal screening benchmarks for editorial triage. They are not permissions to copy material, and no manuscript is accepted solely because its scores fall within these ranges.

Screening indicator	Editorial treatment
Overall similarity: 0–10%	Routine screening benchmark only; proceed to editorial evaluation when no material integrity concerns are identified.
Overall similarity: above 10%	Source-by-source editorial assessment and, where warranted, author clarification or revision. Not an automatic rejection.
Similarity from one source: up to 3%	Routine single-source screening benchmark, subject to inspection of the actual matching text.
Similarity from one source: above 3%	Closer examination of the source and the matching passages; revision or explanation may be requested. Not an automatic rejection.
Substantial continuous copying at any score	Unacceptable as original prose; correction, appropriate attribution and necessary permissions are required, or the manuscript may be rejected.

 

5. Interpretation of Similarity Matches

Editors examine the nature, location, extent, and attribution of highlighted text, not merely the percentage. Overlapping matches from different sources are not added together to calculate overall similarity; the report’s total and source-level figures must be interpreted in context.

Common scientific terminology and unavoidable standard expressions (for example, “artificial intelligence,” “quality assurance,” “machine learning,” and “pharmaceutical manufacturing”) are not, on their own, evidence of plagiarism. Properly cited short quotations, standard terminology, accepted nomenclature, and bibliographic material may also generate legitimate matches.

In contrast, consecutive copied sentences, a complete or near-complete matching paragraph, substantial unattributed paraphrasing, closely reproduced argument structure, or reused figures/data require editorial attention irrespective of whether overall similarity is 10% or lower or an individual-source match is 3% or lower.

KAP will not publish complete or near-complete paragraphs taken from another source as though they are original manuscript prose. The editor will require appropriate rewriting based on the author’s own understanding, clear acknowledgement of the underlying source, and any necessary permissions. Limited, expressly identified quotations may be considered only when academically justified and compliant with copyright and journal requirements.

6. Filters and Exclusions

Where supported by Turnitin, the editorial office may apply consistent and documented exclusions for reference lists/bibliographies, appropriately identified quotations, and genuinely common or incidental short expressions. These exclusions are used to improve interpretation rather than artificially reduce a score.

Sources or substantial passages must not be excluded simply to bring a manuscript below a numerical benchmark. Editors may examine both the original report and the appropriately filtered report, as well as the underlying matched sources.

7. Review, Revision, and Editorial Decisions

When overall similarity exceeds 10% and/or a single source contributes more than 3%, the manuscript is referred for source-by-source editorial analysis; it is not automatically rejected on the basis of the percentage. The editor may request an explanation, missing citations, permissions, or a revised manuscript that removes inappropriate overlap while preserving scholarly accuracy.

After revision, KAP may generate a new similarity report and verify that the flagged issues have genuinely been resolved. Papers that pass integrity screening continue through the journal’s normal peer-review and editorial assessment. A satisfactory similarity report does not replace peer review or imply acceptance.

Serious copying, misappropriation of data or results, deliberate concealment, repeated non-compliance, or an unsatisfactory explanation may result in rejection at any stage, including where the overall or single-source score falls below the screening benchmarks.

8. Author Responsibilities

Authors must submit original work, accurately identify and cite all relevant sources, disclose overlapping or previously published material (including their own work), obtain any necessary rights or permissions for third-party content, and respond fully to editorial questions.

Authors must not manipulate citations, conceal copied text, use misleading substitutions, or employ automated paraphrasing solely to evade detection. Any revisions requested by KAP must correct the underlying attribution or originality problem, not simply lower a number.

9. Editorial Responsibilities and Fair Process

Editors must evaluate similarity findings fairly and consistently, consider the type of article and normal discipline-specific language, compare relevant source passages where practicable, and give authors a reasonable opportunity to explain potential concerns. Editorial decisions must be documented and based on the evidence, scholarly content, and seriousness of any breach.

The Editor-in-Chief or delegated senior editor is responsible for resolving disputed or serious cases. Decisions on rejection, revision, or further investigation remain within the journal’s editorial discretion.

10. Concerns Identified After Publication

If credible concerns arise after publication, KAP will assess the evidence, seek the authors’ response, and take proportionate action consistent with recognized publication-ethics practice. Outcomes may include a clarification, correction, expression of concern, or retraction where warranted.

For serious, substantiated misconduct, KAP may notify relevant institutions or other parties where appropriate and lawful. Published notices will describe the reason for the action transparently.

11. Confidentiality, Records, and Complaints

Unpublished manuscripts and similarity reports are handled as confidential editorial material. KAP retains appropriate records of reports, editorial findings, author responses, and decisions under its applicable privacy and records-management procedures.

Authors may request a review of a similarity-related editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence to the relevant journal’s editorial office. Concerns regarding a published article may be reported through the journal’s official contact channel.

12. Interpretation and Policy Review

The 10% overall and 3% single-source figures are KAP’s preliminary screening benchmarks, not universally mandated legal limits and not a declaration that any level of plagiarism is acceptable. They apply together with source-level editorial review, attribution, copyright considerations, and independent peer review.

KAP may revise this policy as scholarly publishing standards, journal requirements, and screening practices evolve. The version publicly displayed on the journal or publisher website is the controlling version.