JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching is committed to maintaining academic integrity, research originality, and ethical scholarly publishing. All manuscripts submitted to JOLLT must represent original scholarly work, acknowledge relevant sources appropriately, and comply with the journal's publication ethics and editorial policies.

JOLLT does not tolerate plagiarism, unauthorized duplication, substantial unattributed textual overlap, or other forms of academic misconduct. The journal implements similarity screening as part of its editorial quality assurance procedures to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and ensure responsible dissemination of scientific knowledge.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to originality assessment by the editorial team using Turnitin Similarity Checker or another appropriate similarity detection system designated by the journal. The interpretation of similarity reports is based on contextual editorial assessment rather than numerical percentages alone.

PLAGIARISM SCREENING AT A GLANCE

Screening Software: Turnitin or another journal-approved similarity detection system.

Initial Similarity Benchmark: 20% overall similarity.

Editorial Assessment: Contextual evaluation of textual overlap, source attribution, originality, and publication integrity.

Automatic Rejection: A similarity score above 20% does not automatically establish plagiarism or require rejection.

Editorial Decisions: Manuscripts may proceed to peer review, require revision or clarification, or be rejected based on the nature and severity of identified concerns.

PLAGIARISM SCREENING INFORMATION

The principal provisions of JOLLT's plagiarism screening and originality assessment procedures are summarized below.

Component	Policy Information
Journal	JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching
Publisher	Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika (UNDIKMA), Indonesia
Screening Software	Turnitin or another designated similarity detection system
Initial Similarity Benchmark	20% overall similarity
Primary Screening Stage	Initial editorial assessment before peer review
Additional Screening	Revision and pre-publication stages, when necessary
Decision-Making Basis	Contextual assessment of similarity reports and supporting evidence
Responsible Personnel	Editor in Chief, handling editors, and authorized editorial personnel
Possible Editorial Actions	Proceed to review, request clarification or revision, reject, or initiate further investigation
Post-Publication Concerns	Handled under the journal's publication ethics and correction or retraction procedures
Appeals	Written appeals submitted through the official editorial contact

QUICK NAVIGATION

Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers may use the following links to access the relevant sections of this policy.

Screening and Originality	Editorial Management
1. Policy Statement	5. Authors' Responsibilities
2. Similarity Screening and Threshold	6. Handling Suspected Plagiarism
3. Plagiarism Screening Procedure	7. Post-Publication Plagiarism
4. Forms of Plagiarism	8. Appeals and Decisions
3.1. Initial Screening	9. Confidentiality
3.2. Editorial Evaluation	10. Related Editorial Policies
3.3. Revised Manuscripts	11. Plagiarism Detection Software
3.4. Pre-Publication Verification	Policy Summary

1. POLICY STATEMENT

JOLLT is committed to maintaining high standards of originality, academic honesty, and responsible scholarly communication. All manuscripts submitted for publication must reflect the authors' original intellectual contributions and must appropriately acknowledge the work of other researchers.

Plagiarism, including unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, unauthorized reproduction of research materials, and misleading presentation of previously published work, is inconsistent with the journal's editorial standards.

The journal's originality assessment procedures are intended to identify potentially problematic overlap, encourage accurate attribution, and provide editors with relevant information for evaluating manuscript integrity.

Similarity screening is an editorial assessment mechanism. It supports, but does not replace, scholarly judgment concerning originality, attribution, publication ethics, and the quality of submitted manuscripts.

JOLLT follows the principles of fairness, confidentiality, consistency, and evidence-based editorial decision-making when addressing suspected plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse.

2. SIMILARITY SCREENING AND THRESHOLD

JOLLT adopts a 20% overall similarity threshold as an initial screening benchmark. Manuscripts with similarity scores exceeding 20% require further editorial examination and may be returned to authors for clarification or revision before proceeding to peer review.

However, a similarity score exceeding 20% does not automatically constitute plagiarism or result in rejection. Likewise, a similarity score of 20% or below does not guarantee that a manuscript is free from plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct.

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE OF SIMILARITY ASSESSMENT

Similarity is not equivalent to plagiarism. A similarity report identifies textual matches between a manuscript and sources available in the detection system's database. The determination of plagiarism requires contextual examination of the matched material, citation practices, attribution, and other relevant evidence.

2.1. Similarity Score Interpretation

The initial screening benchmark guides editorial examination rather than serving as an automatic decision rule. The following table explains how JOLLT interprets similarity scores during initial assessment.

Similarity Result	Editorial Interpretation	Possible Action
20% or Below	The manuscript falls within the initial screening benchmark. However, originality and attribution must still be evaluated.	Proceed to further assessment when no substantive originality concerns are identified.
Above 20%	The manuscript exceeds the initial screening benchmark and requires closer examination of textual overlap.	Request clarification or revision, or proceed when the identified overlap is adequately justified.
Suspected Plagiarism at Any Score	Potentially inappropriate copying, attribution problems, or other integrity concerns are identified regardless of the overall percentage.	Conduct further editorial assessment and apply appropriate action based on the evidence.

2.2. Contextual Evaluation of Similarity Reports

The similarity report is interpreted through an assessment of the matched text, the nature of the sources, the quality of attribution, and the extent of potentially inappropriate textual overlap.

The editorial team considers the following factors:

1. The overall similarity percentage and the distribution of matched text throughout the manuscript.
2. The extent and concentration of similarity attributable to individual sources.
3. Properly cited quotations, reference lists, standardized terminology, and commonly used methodological expressions.
4. The originality of the Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, or their equivalent sections in review manuscripts.
5. Unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, excessive text recycling, and substantial reproduction of previously published material.
6. Potential overlap with the authors' previous publications, conference papers, preprints, theses, dissertations, and related manuscripts.
7. The presence of appropriate disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, and permission for reused material.
8. Other circumstances relevant to distinguishing acceptable scholarly practices from possible misconduct.

Bibliographies, correctly attributed quotations, and other standard textual elements may be considered separately when interpreting similarity reports, as appropriate to the editorial assessment.

A reduction in the overall similarity percentage does not necessarily resolve problems involving improper source attribution, duplicate publication, or substantial intellectual misappropriation.

3. PLAGIARISM SCREENING PROCEDURE

Plagiarism screening is integrated into the journal's editorial workflow and may be conducted at multiple stages of manuscript evaluation. The process combines similarity detection software with contextual assessment by authorized editorial personnel.

The screening procedure is intended to identify potential originality concerns before manuscripts undergo external peer review and to support their resolution before publication.

3.1. Initial Submission Screening

Following manuscript submission through Open Journal Systems (OJS), the editorial team conducts an initial assessment of originality, compliance with the journal's focus and scope, and adherence to manuscript submission requirements.

The manuscript is examined using Turnitin or another designated similarity detection system. The editorial team reviews the similarity report and determines whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

Where no substantive originality or integrity concerns are identified, the manuscript may proceed to the next stage of editorial assessment or peer review.

3.2. Editorial Evaluation of Similarity Results

When potentially problematic textual overlap is identified, the handling editor evaluates the similarity report to determine whether the overlap is appropriately attributed, represents acceptable textual reuse, requires revision, or suggests plagiarism or another publication-integrity concern.

Depending on the findings, the editor may take the following actions:

1. Proceed to Peer Review: Allow the manuscript to continue when no substantive originality concerns remain.
2. Request Revision: Require improved citation, appropriate quotation, paraphrasing, clarification, or correction of overlapping material.
3. Request Documentation: Seek supporting evidence concerning previously disseminated or published material.
4. Reject the Manuscript: Decline the submission when substantial plagiarism, duplicate publication, deliberate misrepresentation, or another serious ethical violation has been established.
5. Refer for Further Investigation: Refer suspected misconduct to the appropriate journal or institutional procedures when additional investigation is necessary.

Editors must base their decisions on documented concerns and reasonable scholarly evaluation rather than on the similarity percentage alone.

3.3. Screening of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional similarity screening when substantial textual changes have been made or unresolved originality concerns remain.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that revisions adequately address the concerns identified during editorial assessment.

Where clarification or revision has been requested, authors should provide an explanation of the changes made and identify how the relevant similarity or attribution concerns have been addressed.

A reduction in the similarity score alone does not necessarily establish that the manuscript satisfies the journal's originality and publication ethics requirements.

3.4. Pre-Publication Verification

Before final publication, the editorial team may conduct an additional originality assessment to verify that previously identified concerns have been appropriately resolved.

Editorial acceptance is based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical compliance, and satisfactory completion of the editorial and peer review procedures.

The journal reserves the right to request further clarification or take appropriate editorial action when significant originality concerns emerge before publication.

4. FORMS OF PLAGIARISM AND UNACCEPTABLE TEXTUAL REUSE

JOLLT considers the following practices unacceptable when they involve misappropriation, inadequate attribution, unauthorized reproduction, or misleading representation of scholarly work.

Type	Description
Direct Plagiarism	Reproducing another author's words or scholarly materials without proper quotation, acknowledgment, or citation.
Paraphrasing Plagiarism	Rewriting or closely paraphrasing another source while presenting its ideas or expression without appropriate attribution.
Mosaic Plagiarism	Combining copied or closely paraphrased passages from multiple sources without sufficient acknowledgment.
Inappropriate Text Recycling	Reusing substantial portions of previously published material without appropriate disclosure, citation, or scholarly justification.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication	Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping work as a separate original contribution without adequate disclosure or legitimate scholarly justification.
Unattributed Research Materials	Presenting another researcher's data, instruments, figures, tables, translations, analyses, or other scholarly contributions without proper acknowledgment or permission where required.

4.1. Text Recycling and Previous Publications

Text recycling refers to the reuse of previously disseminated textual material, particularly from an author's own earlier work. Its acceptability depends on the nature of the material, the extent of overlap, the transparency of disclosure, the presence of appropriate attribution, and the relevant publishing arrangements.

Previous dissemination through preprint repositories, conference presentations, theses, or dissertations does not automatically constitute duplicate publication.

Authors must disclose relevant prior dissemination, and the editorial team evaluates its implications in accordance with the journal's originality and publication policies.

4.2. Reuse of Data, Figures, and Research Instruments

Authors must clearly identify the source of reused data, figures, tables, assessment instruments, analytical frameworks, and other research materials.

Appropriate permissions must be obtained when required by copyright law or the applicable licensing arrangements.

Accurate acknowledgment of sources is required even when materials are openly accessible or distributed under licenses permitting reuse.

5. AUTHORS' RESPONSIBILITIES

Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality, accuracy, and integrity of their manuscripts before submission.

All authors must satisfy the following responsibilities:

1. Submit original scholarly work that has not been published elsewhere in substantially the same form without appropriate disclosure.
2. Provide accurate citations and references for all sources used.
3. Clearly identify direct quotations and appropriately acknowledge adapted or reproduced materials.
4. Disclose relevant previous publications, preprints, conference papers, theses, dissertations, or related manuscripts.
5. Avoid excessive or inappropriate reuse of their previously published text.
6. Respond appropriately to editorial questions regarding similarity or originality.
7. Cooperate with investigations into suspected plagiarism or publication misconduct.
8. Take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of all submitted content, including material prepared with artificial intelligence assistance.

5.1. Originality Assessment Before Submission

Authors are encouraged to conduct an originality assessment before submitting their manuscripts to JOLLT.

Such assessments can help identify missing citations, unnecessary textual overlap, inappropriate quotation practices, or other issues requiring correction.

However, a similarity report obtained independently by the authors does not replace the journal's editorial screening process.

5.2. Responsibility of All Coauthors

All listed authors share responsibility for the integrity of the submitted work and must cooperate in addressing questions concerning originality, attribution, and the accurate reporting of scholarly contributions.

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating responses to the editorial office and ensuring that relevant information is communicated to all coauthors.

6. HANDLING SUSPECTED PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

When potential plagiarism or serious inappropriate textual reuse is identified, JOLLT follows a fair and evidence-based editorial procedure consistent with its Publication Ethics policy.

The editorial team evaluates available evidence, identifies the nature of the concerns, and determines whether additional clarification or investigation is necessary.

6.1. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The handling editor conducts an initial examination of the suspected problem, including relevant textual matches, source documents, citation practices, and any other available supporting evidence.

The editor distinguishes between potential citation errors, unacceptable textual reuse, and more serious concerns involving deliberate or substantial misappropriation.

6.2. Author Clarification and Right of Response

The editorial team may request explanations, supporting documents, or corrections from the corresponding author.

Authors must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations before a final determination is made.

Responses should address the specific concerns and provide appropriate evidence or clarification.

6.3. Further Investigation

When necessary, the editorial team may seek independent expert advice or refer allegations requiring formal investigation to the relevant institution.

Editors must manage relevant conflicts of interest and protect confidential information throughout the assessment process.

6.4. Editorial Outcomes

Depending on the nature and severity of the findings, editorial action may include:

• Requesting clarification or manuscript revision.
• Rejecting the manuscript when serious plagiarism or publication misconduct is established.
• Referring the concern to an appropriate institution for investigation.
• Correcting the published scholarly record.
• Issuing an expression of concern when substantial unresolved questions remain.
• Retracting a published article when the applicable criteria are met.

Decisions concerning research misconduct must be based on documented evidence, appropriate editorial procedures, and scholarly judgment rather than similarity percentages alone.

7. PLAGIARISM IDENTIFIED AFTER PUBLICATION

JOLLT recognizes that concerns about originality or publication integrity may arise after an article has been published.

When a credible allegation is received, the editorial team evaluates the available evidence, contacts the relevant parties as appropriate, and determines whether further investigation or action is necessary.

The evaluation considers the nature and seriousness of the alleged overlap, its possible effects on scholarly attribution and publication integrity, and the relevant documentation.

7.1. Investigation of Published Content

Where the allegation is sufficiently substantiated to warrant further examination, the editorial team may seek clarification from the authors, consult independent experts, or refer the matter to the responsible institution.

The journal aims to protect the integrity of the published record while ensuring fair consideration of relevant explanations and evidence.

7.2. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

When plagiarism or another serious publication-integrity violation is established, JOLLT may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with its editorial policies and applicable publication ethics guidance.

Any formal notice affecting the scholarly record must be clearly identified, publicly accessible, and linked to the relevant published article.

The original publication record should remain identifiable, with its status clearly indicated when a correction or retraction has been issued.

8. APPEALS AND EDITORIAL DECISIONS

Authors who disagree with an originality-related editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal's editorial office through the official contact information provided on the journal website.

An appeal must identify the decision being challenged and provide relevant supporting evidence or clarification.

Appeals are evaluated by an editor who is not affected by a relevant conflict of interest. Where necessary, the Editor in Chief may designate an appropriate independent editor to assess the appeal.

The editorial team may uphold, modify, or reconsider its initial decision based on the evidence presented and the journal's established procedures.

The submission of an appeal does not automatically suspend the journal's responsibility to address serious research-integrity concerns.

9. CONFIDENTIALITY AND RESPONSIBLE USE OF SIMILARITY REPORTS

Manuscripts undergoing originality screening are treated as confidential scholarly submissions.

Editors and other authorized personnel must handle manuscripts and similarity reports responsibly and in accordance with applicable confidentiality, institutional, and data protection requirements.

Similarity reports are used for editorial assessment and must not be disclosed to unauthorized parties.

9.1. Access to Similarity Reports

Access to manuscript similarity reports is restricted to authorized individuals involved in the editorial assessment and relevant research-integrity procedures.

Where appropriate, the editorial office may share relevant findings or report information with the corresponding author to facilitate clarification or revision.

9.2. Confidentiality During Investigation

Information relating to suspected misconduct must be handled with appropriate confidentiality and professional discretion.

Editors should avoid unnecessary disclosure of allegations, supporting documents, and related communications while a matter is under assessment.

10. RELATED EDITORIAL POLICIES

This policy should be read in conjunction with the following JOLLT policies concerning manuscript preparation, publication ethics, editorial review, and scholarly publishing integrity.

Journal Policy	Access
Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies	View Publication Ethics
Author Guidelines	View Author Guidelines
Peer Review Process	View Peer Review Process
Copyright and Licensing Policy	View Copyright and License
Editorial Contact Information	Contact Editorial Office
Online Submission	Access Submission Information

11. PLAGIARISM DETECTION SOFTWARE

JOLLT uses Turnitin as a tool to assist editorial screening and the identification of textual similarities.

The similarity report supports, but does not replace, independent academic judgment concerning originality and publication integrity.

Turnitin compares submitted texts against sources available within its database and identifies areas of similarity. The existence of matching text does not independently establish plagiarism, and editorial assessment is required to determine whether the identified overlap is appropriate.

11.1. Interpretation of Similarity Reports

The use of Turnitin is intended to assist editors in identifying textual overlap that may require scholarly examination.

The software does not independently determine whether misconduct has occurred, whether the identified overlap is acceptable, or whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected.

Editors interpret the results in accordance with the journal's originality criteria, relevant academic standards, and publication ethics procedures.

11.2. Official Guidance

The journal's approach recognizes the distinction between textual similarity and plagiarism explained in Turnitin's official guidance.

Reference: Turnitin and Plagiarism: Official Guidance.

PLAGIARISM AND ORIGINALITY POLICY SUMMARY

JOLLT'S COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH ORIGINALITY

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching applies similarity screening to support academic integrity and responsible scholarly publishing. The journal uses a 20% overall similarity threshold as an initial screening benchmark while recognizing that plagiarism cannot be determined solely from a similarity score.

All similarity reports are evaluated through contextual editorial assessment, considering the nature of matched material, the accuracy of attribution, legitimate textual reuse, and other relevant evidence.

Suspected plagiarism and publication misconduct are addressed through fair, confidential, and evidence-based editorial procedures. Corrective measures, including manuscript revision, rejection, correction, expressions of concern, or retraction, may be applied when justified by the findings.

Related Policy: Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies.