How Editors Can Detect and Address Plagiarism in Research Manuscripts

How Editors Can Detect and Address Plagiarism in Academic Publishing

Introduction

Plagiarism is one of the most serious ethical problems in scholarly communication. It undermines the trust that readers place in journals, misrepresents the true contribution of researchers, and can distort the scholarly record for years. In an era of increasing publication pressure, easy access to digital content, and widespread use of AI-based writing tools, plagiarism is also more complex and varied than ever before.

Editors are on the front line of defence. They are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts published in their journals represent original work, fairly acknowledge the contributions of others, and adhere to accepted ethical standards. Fulfilling this responsibility requires more than simply running a similarity report before acceptance. Editors must understand the different forms that plagiarism can take, distinguish between minor lapses and serious misconduct, and respond in a way that is firm, fair, and transparent.

This article provides a practical guide to detecting and addressing plagiarism in research manuscripts. It first outlines the main types of plagiarism that editors encounter, moving beyond simple verbatim copying to cover self-plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, citation manipulation, and the misuse of figures and data. It then describes practical methods for detection, including the use of similarity-detection software, close reading for stylistic inconsistency, careful reference checking, and collaboration with informed peer reviewers. Finally, it presents best-practice strategies for handling suspected cases and explores the wider roles of journals and institutions in preventing plagiarism and promoting research integrity.

Understanding the Different Types of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is often imagined as a simple act of copying and pasting text from one document into another. In reality, editors encounter a spectrum of behaviours, ranging from poorly referenced paraphrasing to deliberate attempts to pass off someone else’s work as one’s own. Understanding these forms helps editors respond proportionately and explain their decisions clearly to authors.

1. Direct Plagiarism (Verbatim Copying)

Direct plagiarism occurs when an author copies text word-for-word from another source without appropriate quotation marks or citation. Even if minor superficial changes are introduced—such as replacing a few words with synonyms or rearranging clauses—if the structure and meaning remain essentially identical, the passage is still plagiarised.

For editors, direct plagiarism is typically the easiest form to detect, especially when using similarity-detection tools that compare manuscripts against large digital archives. However, it remains essential to interpret similarity results carefully: standard phrases, methodological descriptions, and template ethics statements may legitimately reappear across papers.

2. Self-Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

Self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse substantial parts of their own previously published work without transparent acknowledgement. This can involve submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals, republishing large sections of a previously published article, or reusing figures and tables without clear citation or permission.

While authors naturally build on their prior work, self-plagiarism becomes unethical when it creates the impression that the material is entirely new, inflates an author’s publication record, or fragments a single study into multiple overlapping papers (“salami slicing”). Editors should be especially cautious when they see very high similarity scores with an author’s own papers or when methods and results sections look surprisingly familiar.

3. Paraphrasing Plagiarism

Paraphrasing plagiarism occurs when an author rewrites someone else’s ideas in different words but fails to provide proper attribution. Even if sentences are restructured and some wording is changed, the underlying intellectual contribution belongs to the original author and must be credited.

This form of plagiarism can be more difficult to detect, particularly if the paraphrasing is relatively sophisticated. However, modern AI-assisted tools are increasingly able to recognise similarities in meaning and structure. Editors should pay particular attention to sections that summarise existing literature, where heavy paraphrasing of review articles or textbook material is common.

4. Mosaic Plagiarism (Patchwriting)

Mosaic plagiarism, also known as patchwriting, involves weaving together phrases, clauses, or sentences from various sources without appropriate citation or quotation. The resulting text may not match any single source exactly, but it still largely reproduces others’ work.

Patchwriting is common among inexperienced authors and non-native speakers who may not feel confident expressing complex ideas in their own words. While sometimes motivated by a desire to “sound academic”, it remains a serious issue because it conceals the true source of ideas. Editors may notice mosaic plagiarism when the style alternates between fluent, idiomatic English and more basic prose, or when unusual technical phrases appear without context.

5. Citation Manipulation

Plagiarism is not only about reusing text; it also includes manipulating citations in order to create a misleading impression of originality or extensive scholarship. Examples include:

• Inventing or fabricating references that do not exist.
• Citing irrelevant sources merely to populate a reference list or avoid detection.
• Omitting citations to foundational work in order to suggest that the ideas are new.

Citation manipulation distorts the scholarly record and may also be used to artificially inflate citation counts for specific authors or journals. Careful editorial checking of reference lists—especially for key claims or surprisingly broad literature coverage—is therefore essential.

6. Plagiarism in Figures, Tables, and Data

Plagiarism is not restricted to text. Authors may reuse figures, tables, diagrams, or datasets created by others without permission or proper acknowledgement. In some cases, they may slightly alter visual presentations or selectively report data to give the illusion of originality.

Editors should be alert to reused or suspiciously familiar images, particularly in fields such as the life sciences where image manipulation has been widely documented. Many publishers now use specialised tools for detecting duplicated or altered images, but even simple visual inspection can reveal inconsistencies such as repeated patterns, misaligned labels, or figures that do not match the described methods.

How Editors Can Detect Plagiarism in Manuscripts

Given the volume of submissions many journals receive, manual detection alone is no longer feasible. Instead, successful editors combine technology, careful reading, and community expertise in a structured workflow.

1. Using Plagiarism Detection Software Effectively

Similarity-detection tools are a core component of modern editorial practice. Popular options—such as Turnitin, iThenticate, Crossref Similarity Check, and the Grammarly plagiarism checker—compare manuscripts against extensive databases of published articles, web pages, and, in some cases, student papers or institutional repositories.

These systems generate similarity reports that highlight overlapping text and provide an overall similarity percentage. However, editors must interpret these reports with care:

• High similarity in references, standard methods, or ethical statements may be entirely legitimate.
• Even a relatively low overall percentage may hide serious plagiarism in a key section.
• Similarity to an author’s own previous work may indicate self-plagiarism rather than copying from others.

Best practice is to focus not on the headline number, but on the location and nature of overlaps. Editors should examine highlighted passages in context and decide whether they reflect acceptable reuse, poor paraphrasing, or deliberate copying.

2. Looking for Inconsistencies in Style and Tone

Similarity software is powerful but not infallible. Experienced editors often notice plagiarism through shifts in writing style. Sudden changes in vocabulary level, sentence complexity, or rhetorical style may indicate that parts of the manuscript were copied from another source or written by a different person.

Signs to watch for include:

• Paragraphs with much more sophisticated language than the rest of the manuscript.
• Changes in terminology or notation that are inconsistent with the author’s usual practice.
• Formatting anomalies such as different fonts, spacing, or reference styles in certain sections.

When such inconsistencies appear, editors can perform targeted searches or request clarification from the authors.

3. Reviewing References and Citations Carefully

Reference lists can reveal a great deal about the integrity of a manuscript. Editors should check whether:

• All cited references exist and are relevant to the claims in the text.
• Key claims are supported by appropriate, authoritative sources.
• The formatting of references is consistent; fabricated citations often contain incorrect details or unusual patterns.

Spot-checking a sample of references—especially those associated with heavily overlapped text—can help confirm whether an author has engaged responsibly with the literature or is masking unattributed borrowing.

4. Cross-Checking Authors’ Previous Work

To detect self-plagiarism and duplicate publication, editors should compare the submitted manuscript with the authors’ earlier articles, theses, or conference papers. This can often be done quickly using publisher databases, ORCID profiles, or general search engines.

Where large overlaps are found, editors should assess whether earlier work is clearly cited and whether the new manuscript offers substantial additional contribution. Reusing a methods description with proper citation, for example, may be acceptable; republishing the same results with minimal change is not.

5. Involving Peer Reviewers in Detection

Peer reviewers bring deep disciplinary knowledge and often recognise specific phrases, figures, or arguments from existing literature. They may spot overlaps that software systems miss, particularly when plagiarism occurs from sources not yet indexed in major databases or from non-English publications.

Editors can encourage reviewers to flag suspected plagiarism by:

• Including an explicit question about originality in the review form.
• Inviting reviewers to provide links or citations to suspect material.
• Reassuring reviewers that concerns about plagiarism will be treated confidentially and professionally.

Best Practices for Addressing Plagiarism Cases

Once potential plagiarism has been identified, editors must handle the situation in a way that is fair to authors, consistent with journal policy, and aligned with broader ethical guidelines (such as those published by COPE). A clear, documented process is essential.

1. Assessing the Severity of Plagiarism

Not all cases are equally serious. Editors can classify plagiarism into broad categories:

• Minor plagiarism – Limited unattributed phrases or sentences, often in the introduction or background, that can be corrected by revision and proper citation.
• Moderate plagiarism – Larger sections of poorly paraphrased or closely copied material, typically requiring substantial rewriting and full disclosure of sources.
• Severe plagiarism – Extensive copying across multiple sections, reuse of someone else’s data or results, or clear evidence of deliberate deception.

This classification helps determine the appropriate editorial response and makes it easier to explain decisions to authors and institutions.

2. Contacting Authors for Clarification

When plagiarism is suspected, editors should contact the corresponding author with a calm, factual message. This communication typically includes:

• A description of the issue and the sections involved.
• The similarity report or examples of overlapping passages.
• A request for an explanation within a specific timeframe.

In minor cases, it may be sufficient to ask authors to revise the manuscript, add missing citations, or rewrite overlapping sections. In more serious cases, editors may need to pause the review process while awaiting a response. If the explanation is unsatisfactory—or if there is strong evidence of intentional misconduct—further action is required.

3. Decisions: Corrections, Rejection, or Retraction

Depending on the severity and context, editors have several options:

• For minor plagiarism identified before publication, authors may be invited to revise, with clear guidance on how to paraphrase and cite properly.
• For moderate to severe plagiarism in a submission, the appropriate response is usually rejection, with a brief but clear explanation of the reasons.
• If serious plagiarism is discovered in a published article, the journal may need to issue a correction, expression of concern, or formal retraction, depending on the extent of the problem.

All decisions should be documented internally so that similar cases are treated consistently over time.

4. Reporting Deliberate or Systemic Misconduct

When there is evidence of deliberate, large-scale plagiarism, editors have an ethical duty to inform relevant bodies. This may include:

• The author’s institution or department.
• Funding agencies that supported the research.
• Other journals, if the same or very similar work has been submitted elsewhere.

Reporting should be factual and supported by documentation (such as similarity reports and correspondence). The aim is not to punish individuals personally, but to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and ensure that institutions can investigate properly.

5. Educating Authors and Preventing Future Problems

Editors can also help prevent plagiarism by educating authors. Journals can:

• Publish clear, accessible guidelines explaining what counts as plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
• Encourage authors to use similarity detection tools before submission to identify and fix problems early.
• Recommend resources on ethical writing, paraphrasing, and citation practices.

Authors who are less familiar with international publishing standards—such as early-career researchers and non-native speakers—may particularly benefit from this guidance. Many also find it helpful to obtain independent language and structure support from professional academic proofreading services, which can reduce the temptation to copy phrases from other sources simply because they “sound better”.

The Role of Institutions and Publishers in Preventing Plagiarism

Plagiarism prevention cannot rest on editors alone. Research institutions, funders, and publishers all have important roles to play in creating environments that support ethical writing.

1. Clear Institutional Policies and Procedures

Universities and research organisations should establish and communicate explicit policies on plagiarism and related misconduct. These policies can include:

• Requirements for plagiarism checks before theses or manuscripts are submitted.
• Defined penalties and remediation processes for confirmed cases of plagiarism.
• Guidelines on text recycling, collaborative writing, and appropriate use of AI tools.

2. Training and Support in Ethical Writing

Institutions can reduce unintentional plagiarism by providing regular training in:

• Correct use of citation styles and reference managers.
• Paraphrasing and summarising techniques that maintain the original meaning but use genuinely new wording.
• Ethical publication practices, including authorship, data sharing, and reporting standards.

Workshops, online modules, and mentoring programmes can all help to normalise discussion of research integrity rather than treating it solely as a compliance issue.

3. Encouraging Transparency and Open Practices

Finally, promoting open and transparent research practices can make plagiarism less attractive and easier to detect. Examples include:

• Depositing datasets and protocols in open repositories.
• Encouraging preprints and open peer review where appropriate.
• Supporting journals and infrastructures that share metadata and similarity-detection resources.

A transparent research culture helps ensure that credit is properly assigned and that readers can verify claims against underlying evidence.

Conclusion

Plagiarism is a multifaceted ethical challenge that threatens the credibility of academic publishing. It ranges from obvious copy-and-paste text to more subtle forms such as self-plagiarism, patchwriting, and citation manipulation. Editors are central to detecting and addressing these problems, but they cannot rely on technology alone. Effective plagiarism management combines AI-based similarity detection, careful editorial reading, informed peer review, and clear ethical frameworks.

By understanding the different types of plagiarism, using similarity tools intelligently, scrutinising references and figures, and applying consistent decision-making processes, editors can respond fairly to suspected cases and protect the integrity of their journals. At the same time, institutions and publishers must support this work through robust policies, author education, and transparent research practices.

For authors, the safest path is straightforward: write honestly, cite generously, and seek help when needed. Using AI-writing tools carelessly or cutting and pasting text from earlier work may seem like shortcuts, but they carry serious risks when universities and publishers routinely screen submissions. Combining responsible writing with expert human proofreading and editing is still the most reliable way to produce original, clearly written manuscripts that meet the high ethical standards expected in today’s scholarly publishing environment.