Plagiarism and AI Content Policy

 
ORIGINALITY  •  ATTRIBUTION  •  TRANSPARENCY  •  HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY

Plagiarism and AI Content Policy

 

The Paradigm Chronicle

Journal of Academic Inquiry & Critical Thought

Safeguarding Original Scholarship and Promoting Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Original Scholarship Similarity Screening Responsible AI Use Mandatory Verification Author Accountability
✦
POLICY STATEMENT

Originality, Intellectual Honesty and Responsible Technology Use

The Paradigm Chronicle Journal of Academic Inquiry & Critical Thought is committed to protecting originality, intellectual honesty and responsible scholarly communication. Manuscripts submitted to the journal must represent genuine academic work and must appropriately acknowledge the ideas, words, theories, data, images, arguments and other intellectual contributions of previous researchers.

The journal recognises that artificial-intelligence technologies may assist researchers in limited and legitimate scholarly activities. However, such tools must not replace original intellectual contribution, critical reasoning, research judgement, source verification or human accountability.

All authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, authenticity, citations, data, analysis, interpretations, permissions, ethical compliance and final content of manuscripts submitted in their names, regardless of whether digital or artificial-intelligence tools were used during preparation.

CORE POLICY PRINCIPLES

Foundation of Original and Responsible Scholarship

1
Originality
2
Attribution
3
Transparency
4
Human Accountability
01   PLAGIARISM

What Constitutes Plagiarism?

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, theories, arguments, interpretations, data, results, images, figures, tables, creative material or other intellectual contribution as one's own without appropriate acknowledgement.

Plagiarism may occur through direct copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, unattributed translation, reproduction of data or images, substantial borrowing of structure or argument, or other forms of intellectual appropriation.

The obligation to provide appropriate attribution applies whether the original material is published, unpublished, printed, digital, publicly available or obtained through another legitimate scholarly source.

02   FORMS OF PLAGIARISM

Examples of Unacceptable Appropriation

Direct Plagiarism

Copying substantial words or passages from another source without quotation, citation or proper acknowledgement.

Mosaic Plagiarism

Combining phrases, sentences or ideas from different sources with insufficient acknowledgement.

Inappropriate Paraphrasing

Making superficial wording changes while preserving another author's expression or intellectual structure without proper citation.

Translation Plagiarism

Translating another person's work into another language and presenting it without appropriate attribution.

Data Plagiarism

Using another researcher's data, results, datasets or observations without proper acknowledgement or permission where required.

Image or Figure Plagiarism

Reproducing figures, photographs, graphs, diagrams or illustrations without appropriate attribution or required permission.

Idea Plagiarism

Presenting another researcher's distinctive ideas, arguments or interpretations as original contributions without acknowledgement.

Self-Plagiarism

Substantially reusing one's own previously published material without appropriate citation, disclosure or scholarly justification.

03

Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Authors should not substantially reproduce material from their own previously published work and present it as a new contribution without transparent acknowledgement.

Reasonable reuse of methodological descriptions or other limited material may occasionally be necessary, but such reuse should be transparent, appropriately cited where relevant and should not create a misleading impression that previously published work is entirely new.

Recycling previously published data, figures, results, analyses or substantial sections of text without disclosure may be treated as self-plagiarism or redundant publication.

04   DUPLICATE AND REDUNDANT PUBLICATION

Avoiding Misrepresentation of Previously Published Work

Authors should not publish substantially the same research, analysis or conclusions in multiple journals without transparent disclosure and legitimate scholarly justification.

A manuscript submitted to the journal should not ordinarily be simultaneously under active consideration by another journal or publisher.

Where submitted work develops a thesis, dissertation, conference paper, pre-existing report or other earlier scholarly output, authors should disclose the relationship where appropriate and ensure that the new manuscript provides a legitimate and substantial scholarly contribution.

05   SIMILARITY SCREENING

Similarity Reports Require Academic Interpretation

Submitted manuscripts may be examined through recognised similarity-detection tools as part of the editorial screening process. Similarity reports assist editors in identifying matched textual material and possible originality concerns.

A numerical similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism. Legitimately quoted material, references, standard terminology, methodological language, institutional names and other properly acknowledged content may contribute to a similarity score without constituting misconduct.

Editorial assessment therefore considers the nature, extent, location, source and context of matched material. Manuscripts containing inappropriate unattributed overlap may be returned for revision, subjected to further investigation or rejected depending upon the seriousness of the concern.

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

Similarity Is Not the Same as Plagiarism

Similarity-detection software identifies textual matches; it does not independently determine whether plagiarism has occurred. Final assessment requires academic and editorial judgement. A manuscript with a relatively low overall similarity may still contain serious plagiarism in a significant section, while a manuscript with a higher score may contain legitimate quotations, references or other properly attributed material.

06

Author Responsibility for Originality

Authors bear primary responsibility for ensuring that manuscripts are original, accurately referenced and free from inappropriate intellectual appropriation before submission.

Authors should verify quotations, paraphrases, citations, references, figures, tables and data sources carefully rather than relying solely upon similarity-detection software.

Submission of a manuscript constitutes an assurance that the authors accept responsibility for its originality and for appropriately acknowledging all material derived from other sources.

07   ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN SCHOLARLY WORK

AI May Assist, but Human Scholars Remain Responsible

The journal recognises that artificial-intelligence tools may be used for certain supportive academic tasks. Nevertheless, AI-generated output should never be treated as automatically accurate, original, properly referenced or suitable for scholarly publication.

Researchers must exercise independent intellectual judgement and verify any AI-assisted material before incorporating it into a manuscript. The use of AI does not transfer responsibility from human authors to a software system or technology provider.

Authors remain accountable for every statement, argument, citation, calculation, data representation, interpretation, image and conclusion appearing in the final manuscript.

08   RESPONSIBLE SUPPORTIVE USE OF AI

Examples of Potentially Appropriate Assistance

Subject to appropriate human supervision and relevant ethical, confidentiality and disclosure requirements, AI-enabled tools may assist authors with limited supporting activities such as:

Language and grammar assistance
Improving readability of author-written text
Translation assistance followed by human verification
Formatting or organisational assistance
Code assistance subject to testing and validation
Other limited technical assistance under human supervision

Such assistance does not remove the obligation to verify accuracy, preserve originality, protect confidential information and disclose material AI use where appropriate.

09

Unacceptable or Irresponsible AI Use

AI use becomes unacceptable where it compromises originality, accuracy, transparency, research integrity or human responsibility. Examples include:

Submitting substantially AI-generated material as independent human scholarship without appropriate intellectual contribution or disclosure.
Using AI to fabricate research data, interviews, survey responses, observations, experiments or findings.
Using AI-generated references, quotations or DOI information without independently confirming that the sources genuinely exist and support the relevant claims.
Using AI to manipulate or invent images, figures or other research evidence in a misleading manner.
Using AI to conceal plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated evidence or another breach of research integrity.
Using AI-generated content without meaningful human verification, revision and responsibility.
10   AI CANNOT BE AN AUTHOR

Authorship Requires Human Accountability

Artificial-intelligence tools, language models, chatbots and other automated systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of scholarly manuscripts.

Authorship requires the ability to accept responsibility for the research, approve the submitted and published work, respond to scholarly criticism, disclose conflicts of interest and address ethical or legal issues arising from publication.

Because an AI system cannot independently fulfil these responsibilities, accountability for AI-assisted content must remain entirely with the human authors.

11   DISCLOSURE OF AI USE

Transparency regarding Material AI Assistance

Where generative artificial intelligence has been materially used to produce or substantially revise manuscript text, analysis, code, images, translation, data presentation or interpretation, authors should transparently disclose the nature and purpose of such assistance.

The disclosure should be sufficiently clear to enable editors and readers to understand how AI contributed to the preparation of the work. Routine software functions that do not materially affect scholarly content may not require the same level of disclosure.

Suggested AI Disclosure Statement

“The authors used [name of AI tool] for [specific purpose]. All AI-assisted material was independently reviewed, verified and revised by the authors, who accept full responsibility for the originality, accuracy and integrity of the final manuscript.”

12

References, Quotations and AI Hallucinations

Generative AI systems may produce incorrect facts, nonexistent references, fabricated quotations, false DOI information, inaccurate page numbers or misleading summaries of genuine sources.

Authors must independently verify every reference and quotation against the original scholarly source before submission. AI-generated bibliographic information must never be accepted without verification.

Fabricated references or quotations remain the responsibility of the human authors even where the error originated from an artificial-intelligence system.

13   AI, RESEARCH DATA AND EVIDENCE

Authenticity of Research Evidence

Artificial intelligence must not be used to manufacture empirical evidence and present it as data genuinely collected through research. Invented participants, interviews, questionnaires, laboratory observations, field records or experimental results constitute serious research-integrity concerns.

Where AI-based computational methods form a legitimate part of the research methodology, authors should describe those methods sufficiently for appropriate scholarly evaluation and should distinguish model-generated outputs from independently observed or collected evidence.

Authors remain responsible for validating analyses, calculations, coding outputs and interpretations produced with automated assistance.

14   AI-GENERATED OR AI-MODIFIED IMAGES

Visual Integrity

Images, photographs, graphs, figures and other visual materials should accurately represent the underlying research. Artificial-intelligence tools must not be used to fabricate research evidence or misleadingly alter visual information.

Where AI-generated or AI-assisted visual material is legitimately used for explanatory, conceptual or illustrative purposes, its nature should be disclosed where relevant and it should not be presented as direct empirical evidence.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that generated or modified images do not infringe copyright, privacy, confidentiality or other rights.

15

Confidential and Sensitive Information

Authors should exercise caution before entering confidential, proprietary, unpublished, personally identifiable or ethically sensitive research information into external AI systems.

Researchers should consider the privacy, security, data-storage and retention terms of any external AI platform before using it with research material.

The use of an AI service does not remove an author's responsibility to protect participant confidentiality, intellectual property, unpublished research and other information requiring appropriate safeguards.

16   AI USE BY REVIEWERS AND EDITORS

Protecting Confidential Peer Review

Peer review and editorial assessment require independent human scholarly judgement. Reviewers and editors remain personally responsible for their evaluation, reasoning and decisions.

Confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, unpublished data and identifiable manuscript content should not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or other external services where confidentiality, privacy, security or data-retention conditions cannot be adequately assured.

Artificial intelligence must not replace the independent academic expertise and professional judgement required from qualified reviewers and editors.

17   EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT OF AI-RELATED CONCERNS

Evidence-Based Evaluation

The journal may examine concerns relating to undisclosed or irresponsible AI use where there is a reasonable basis for editorial review. Assessment may consider manuscript content, references, data consistency, author explanations and other relevant evidence.

An automated AI-detection score should not by itself be treated as conclusive proof that a manuscript was generated by artificial intelligence or that publication misconduct occurred.

Where significant concerns exist, authors may be asked to explain their writing or research process, provide relevant supporting information or clarify the role of AI tools before an editorial decision is made.

IMPORTANT AI ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLE

AI Detection Is Not Conclusive Evidence

Automated systems attempting to identify AI-generated text may produce uncertain or inaccurate results. Such indicators may inform further editorial examination but should not be treated as definitive evidence of misconduct without appropriate contextual review and, where necessary, author clarification.

18

Editorial Action before Publication

Where inappropriate textual overlap, insufficient attribution or problematic AI-assisted content is identified before publication, the journal may request clarification or revision, return the manuscript for correction, suspend further review or reject the submission depending upon the seriousness of the issue.

Minor citation or attribution problems that appear to arise from correctable error may be distinguished from substantial or deliberate plagiarism. Editorial action should remain proportionate to the available evidence.

Authors are expected to cooperate honestly with requests for clarification concerning originality, references, data or AI use.

19   POST-PUBLICATION CONCERNS

Protecting the Published Scholarly Record

Publication does not prevent the journal from investigating credible concerns concerning plagiarism, fabricated content, undisclosed AI use, inaccurate references or other integrity problems that are identified after publication.

Depending upon the nature and effect of the issue, appropriate post-publication action may include clarification, correction, an editorial notice, expression of concern or retraction.

Post-publication action is intended primarily to preserve the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record rather than to impose disproportionate punishment.

20   SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATIONS

Handling Significant Integrity Concerns

Serious or repeated breaches involving substantial plagiarism, fabricated evidence, falsified data, intentionally misleading AI-generated material or other significant misconduct may result in rejection, withdrawal of consideration or appropriate post-publication action.

Where a matter requires institutional investigation or authority beyond the journal's editorial role, the journal may communicate substantiated concerns to an author's institution, research organisation, ethics committee, funding body or other competent authority where appropriate.

An allegation is not automatically regarded as proof of misconduct. Relevant parties should ordinarily be provided an opportunity to offer clarification or supporting information before serious conclusions are reached.

BEFORE SUBMISSION

Plagiarism and AI Compliance Checklist

✓ The manuscript represents genuine and original scholarly work.

✓ All quotations, ideas, theories, data, figures and other borrowed material are appropriately acknowledged.

✓ Previously published material by the authors has been cited or disclosed where appropriate.

✓ The manuscript is not simultaneously submitted elsewhere in a manner inconsistent with journal policy.

✓ Every reference and quotation has been independently verified against a genuine source.

✓ AI has not been used to fabricate data, findings, participants, references or research evidence.

✓ Material use of generative AI has been disclosed where applicable.

✓ All AI-assisted material has been independently reviewed and verified by the authors.

✓ Confidential or sensitive research information has been appropriately protected.

✓ The human authors accept full responsibility for the final manuscript.

POLICY AT A GLANCE

Key Requirements

No Plagiarism Proper Citation No Fabricated Data No Fake References AI Cannot Be an Author Disclose Material AI Use Human Verification Required Protect Confidential Data Authors Remain Accountable
✓

Technology May Assist Scholarship; It Cannot Replace Scholarly Responsibility

The Paradigm Chronicle Journal of Academic Inquiry & Critical Thought recognises the evolving role of artificial intelligence in academic work while maintaining that originality, critical reasoning, source evaluation, ethical judgement and accountability must remain human responsibilities.

Responsible AI use is therefore defined not merely by whether a tool was used, but by whether its use was transparent, appropriately supervised, independently verified and consistent with the integrity of the research and publication process.

✦

Original Thought. Responsible Technology. Scholarly Integrity.

 

The Paradigm Chronicle Journal of Academic Inquiry & Critical Thought is committed to publishing scholarship that reflects intellectual honesty, accurate attribution and responsible human judgement. Artificial intelligence may support legitimate scholarly activity, but it must never be used to conceal plagiarism, manufacture evidence, fabricate references or replace the intellectual accountability expected from human researchers.

 
The Paradigm Chronicle
Journal of Academic Inquiry & Critical Thought
ORIGINALITY  •  RESPONSIBLE AI  •  HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY
INNOVATION  •  INSIGHT  •  INTEGRITY