Similarity Check Policy

Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives

Similarity Screening: All manuscripts submitted to Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives are subject to originality and similarity screening as part of the editorial evaluation process. As a general standard, the journal applies a maximum overall similarity level of 20% . However, the similarity percentage alone does not determine whether a manuscript contains plagiarism. Editors evaluate both the quantity and context of matched material before making an editorial decision.

A. PURPOSE OF SIMILARITY CHECKING

Similarity screening is conducted to support academic integrity and responsible scholarly publishing. The process helps the editorial team identify potentially problematic overlap with previously published or publicly available material, including copied text, inadequate paraphrasing, duplicate publication, and inappropriate reuse of previously published content.

B. SIMILARITY THRESHOLD

General Maximum Overall Similarity

20%

Subject to qualitative editorial assessment

A manuscript with an overall similarity score above 20% may be returned to the authors for revision or declined when the overlap is considered excessive, inappropriate, or academically unacceptable. A manuscript with a similarity score below 20% may also be questioned if the report reveals substantial unattributed copying from one or more sources.

C. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SIMILARITY

The editorial team does not evaluate manuscripts solely by an automated similarity percentage. Editors may consider:

the source of the matched text;
the length and concentration of the overlap;
whether the source has been properly cited;
whether quotation marks or block quotations are used correctly;
whether paraphrasing is sufficiently original;
whether the overlap occurs in methods, definitions, standard terminology, or substantive arguments;
whether the material originates from the authors' own previously published work;
whether the overlap affects the originality or scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

D. SIMILARITY THAT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE

Not every textual match constitutes plagiarism. Some similarity may be legitimate and unavoidable, depending on the context.

Examples may include:

properly cited quotations;
reference lists and bibliographic information;
standard methodological terminology;
commonly used academic expressions;
names of institutions, locations, programs, or regulations;
standard research instruments or technical terminology;
ethical declarations and standard procedural statements;
properly acknowledged material from theses, repositories, or earlier versions of the work.

E. UNACCEPTABLE TEXTUAL OVERLAP

The following practices are considered unacceptable:

copying text from another source without appropriate citation;
using another author's ideas or arguments without acknowledgment;
minor word substitution while retaining the structure of the original source;
extensive verbatim copying even when the source is cited, unless clearly justified and properly quoted;
copying tables, figures, images, data, or research instruments without proper attribution or permission where required;
submitting previously published work as an original manuscript;
inappropriate recycling of substantial portions of the authors' own previously published text.

F. SELF-PLAGIARISM AND TEXT RECYCLING

Authors should not reuse substantial portions of their own previously published work without appropriate citation and disclosure. Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions may sometimes be acceptable when necessary, but authors should avoid unnecessary duplication and should clearly acknowledge relevant earlier publications. Manuscripts developed from theses, dissertations, conference papers, preprints, or institutional repositories should disclose the relationship to the earlier version where appropriate.

G. THESES, DISSERTATIONS, AND REPOSITORIES

A similarity report may identify text originating from an author's thesis, dissertation, institutional repository, conference proceeding, or other previously deposited scholarly material. Such matches are not automatically treated as plagiarism. The editorial team will evaluate whether the submitted manuscript represents a sufficiently developed scholarly article, whether the earlier source has been acknowledged, and whether duplicate publication concerns exist.

H. SIMILARITY IN METHODOLOGICAL SECTIONS

The journal recognizes that methodological sections may contain technical language, standard procedures, instrument descriptions, statistical terminology, or established research protocols that can generate legitimate textual similarity. Nevertheless, authors should write methods as independently as reasonably possible and properly cite the original source of established procedures, instruments, frameworks, or analytical techniques.

I. EDITORIAL ACTION BASED ON SIMILARITY RESULTS

Acceptable	The similarity is limited, properly attributed, and does not compromise originality.
Revision Required	Authors may be asked to paraphrase, cite correctly, reduce overlap, or clarify the source of matched material.
Editorial Investigation	Substantial or suspicious overlap may require further editorial assessment.
Decline Submission	Manuscripts involving serious plagiarism, duplicate publication, or extensive inappropriate copying may be rejected.

J. POST-PUBLICATION CONCERNS

Similarity or plagiarism concerns identified after publication will be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Retraction, Correction, and Withdrawal Policy. Depending on the findings, appropriate action may include a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, or retraction.

K. AI-GENERATED CONTENT AND ORIGINALITY

The use of artificial intelligence tools does not exempt authors from the journal's originality and plagiarism requirements. Authors remain responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted or AI-generated text does not reproduce copyrighted or previously published material without appropriate attribution. AI tools must not be used to conceal plagiarism, fabricate references, or misrepresent the originality of a manuscript.

L. AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITY

Authors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts submitted to Dialogue are original and properly attributed. Before submission, authors are encouraged to review their manuscripts carefully, verify all citations and quotations, and ensure that paraphrased material is genuinely rewritten in their own scholarly language. The responsibility for plagiarism, copyright infringement, and improper attribution remains with the authors.

M. SIMILARITY CHECK AT A GLANCE

20% General Maximum

Qualitative Context is Evaluated

Originality Required

No Plagiarism Strict Ethical Standard

Originality Beyond the Percentage

Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives does not regard a similarity score as the sole measure of academic integrity. The journal evaluates similarity reports in context and considers whether matched material is appropriately quoted, cited, paraphrased, and academically justified. The central requirement is that every manuscript must represent original, properly attributed, and ethically responsible scholarly work.

Dialogue: Educational and Social Perspectives
Education • Society • Perspectives

Published by PT. Gammabeta Edu and Tech