PLAGIARISM AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) POLICY

Medical JKK is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, academic integrity, originality, and research transparency. This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties involved in the journal's publication process. It is developed with reference to the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

A. PLAGIARISM POLICY

1. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another person's words, ideas, data, findings, images, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment or attribution. It constitutes a breach of academic integrity and publication ethics.

Medical JKK considers the following practices potential forms of plagiarism or publication misconduct:

Direct plagiarism: Copying text or material from another source without proper quotation, citation, or acknowledgment.
Mosaic plagiarism: Combining words, phrases, or passages from multiple sources without appropriate attribution.
Paraphrasing plagiarism: Rewriting another author's ideas or arguments without providing a proper citation.
Data and image plagiarism: Using another person's research data, tables, figures, photographs, clinical images, or other visual materials without appropriate acknowledgment or permission where required.
Source misrepresentation: Presenting another person's findings, arguments, or conclusions as one's own.
Self-plagiarism and redundant publication: Reusing substantial portions of one's previously published work without appropriate acknowledgment, or submitting substantially overlapping manuscripts without transparent disclosure.
Improper attribution: Failing to acknowledge sources that materially contribute to the manuscript's content, analysis, or conclusions.

All submitted manuscripts must represent original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledge the contributions of other researchers.

2. Similarity Screening

Medical JKK may use plagiarism-detection software or other similarity-checking tools to assist editors in identifying textual overlap between submitted manuscripts and existing publications or publicly available sources.

Similarity screening may be conducted during the initial editorial assessment and, where necessary, at subsequent stages of the editorial and peer-review process.

The journal does not determine plagiarism solely on the basis of a similarity percentage. Similarity reports must be interpreted in context by the editor, taking into account the nature, source, extent, and purpose of the identified overlap.

For example, properly cited quotations, standard technical terminology, references, and common methodological expressions may produce similarity matches without necessarily constituting plagiarism.

Conversely, a relatively low similarity score does not automatically establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct.

3. Editorial Assessment and Investigation

When potential plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct are identified, the editorial team will assess the available evidence fairly and objectively.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:

Request clarification or an explanation from the corresponding author.
Ask the author to provide supporting documents, original sources, or relevant research records.
Require appropriate revisions and corrections where the problem is minor and can legitimately be resolved.
Reject the manuscript if substantial plagiarism, unattributed reuse, or other serious ethical violations are established.
Initiate a further investigation when serious concerns remain unresolved.
Contact the relevant institution or other appropriate authority when warranted by the seriousness of the case and the available evidence.
Publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for an already published article when justified by the findings of the investigation.

The journal will handle allegations in accordance with applicable publication ethics principles and relevant COPE guidance.

4. Consequences of Plagiarism

The editorial response will depend on the seriousness, extent, and circumstances of the misconduct.

Possible actions include:

Requesting clarification or correction of the manuscript.
Rejecting the submitted manuscript.
Suspending editorial consideration while an investigation is conducted.
Retracting a published article when the evidence and circumstances justify retraction.
Notifying the author's institution or other relevant parties where appropriate.

The journal will provide authors with a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations before making a final determination, except where immediate action is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

5. Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting manuscripts to Medical JKK must:

Ensure that their manuscripts are original and have not been published elsewhere in substantially the same form without appropriate disclosure.
Cite all sources that materially inform their work.
Obtain permission for third-party materials when permission is required.
Disclose relevant overlap with their own previously published or concurrently submitted work.
Ensure that all listed authors have made appropriate contributions and approve the final manuscript.
Provide accurate and verifiable research data and information.
Cooperate with reasonable editorial inquiries concerning originality, attribution, and publication ethics.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submissions comply with this policy.

B. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) POLICY

1. General Principles

Medical JKK recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI and large language models, may assist researchers in writing, editing, translation, coding, data processing, and other research-related activities.

The journal permits appropriate and responsible use of AI tools, provided that such use does not compromise research integrity, originality, confidentiality, transparency, or the accuracy of the scientific record.

This policy follows the COPE position that AI tools cannot qualify as authors and that human authors remain fully accountable for the content of their manuscripts, including material generated or modified with AI assistance.

2. Permitted Use of AI by Authors

Authors may use AI tools for appropriate supporting activities, including:

Grammar correction, spelling checks, and language improvement.
Translation and language editing.
Improving the clarity, readability, and organization of a manuscript.
Assistance with programming or code development, provided that the resulting code and outputs are appropriately verified.
Assistance with literature organization or preliminary information retrieval, provided that all sources are independently verified.
Other legitimate supporting tasks that do not misrepresent the research process or its findings.

The use of AI must not replace the authors' critical thinking, independent scholarly judgment, or responsibility for the validity of the research.

Authors must carefully review AI-generated or AI-assisted content before submission. All factual claims, references, citations, data, interpretations, and conclusions must be independently checked.

3. Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI tools in preparing a manuscript, including the generation or substantial revision of text, images, figures, code, or other scholarly content.

The disclosure should identify:

The name of the AI tool and, where available, its version.
The purpose for which the tool was used.
The relevant parts of the manuscript or research process in which it was used.
The extent and nature of the human authors' verification and review, where relevant.

The disclosure should be included in the Materials and Methods section, Acknowledgments section, or a separate AI Use Declaration, as appropriate to the nature of the use.

Routine spelling correction or basic grammar assistance generally does not require a separate declaration unless the journal specifically requests it.

Authors must not conceal material AI involvement or falsely represent AI-generated content as independently verified research.

Suggested disclosure statement:

"The authors used [name of AI tool] for [specific purpose, such as language editing, translation, or assistance with code development]. The authors reviewed and verified the relevant output and accept full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript."

Authors should modify this statement to accurately reflect their actual use of AI. It must not be included if no such tool was used.

4. AI and Authorship

AI tools, including chatbots and large language models, must not be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript submitted to Medical JKK.

Authorship is reserved for eligible human contributors who meet the journal's authorship requirements and can accept responsibility for their contributions.

AI systems cannot assume accountability for research integrity, conflicts of interest, copyright, licensing, or the accuracy of published findings.

All authors remain fully responsible for the manuscript, including any content produced or modified with AI assistance.

5. Prohibited and Unacceptable Uses of AI

Authors must not use AI tools to:

Fabricate or falsify research data, clinical observations, experimental results, or statistical findings.
Generate fictitious patients, research participants, interviews, or clinical records and present them as genuine research evidence.
Create false references, fictitious citations, or bibliographic information that does not correspond to real publications.
Misrepresent the existence, accuracy, or interpretation of sources.
Generate text or other material that plagiarizes existing work or infringes intellectual property rights.
Manipulate research images, clinical photographs, diagnostic images, or other scientific evidence in ways that misrepresent the underlying data.
Produce misleading results or conclusions and present them as valid scientific findings.
Conceal material AI involvement when disclosure is required.
Violate patient confidentiality, research participant privacy, research ethics requirements, or applicable data-protection obligations.

AI-generated references must be verified against reliable sources before they are cited. AI output must never be treated as an authoritative source of scientific evidence without independent verification.

6. AI-Generated Images, Figures, and Clinical Materials

The use of AI to generate or modify images, figures, illustrations, or other visual materials must not misrepresent the underlying research evidence.

Authors must disclose substantive AI involvement in the creation or modification of visual materials when relevant to the submitted work.

AI-generated or AI-modified images must not be presented as genuine clinical photographs, diagnostic images, laboratory results, experimental observations, or other original research evidence when they do not accurately represent the actual source material.

Authors must ensure that all images and visual materials comply with applicable copyright, licensing, patient confidentiality, consent, and research ethics requirements.

The journal may request original image files, source data, or additional explanations when concerns arise regarding the authenticity or integrity of submitted visual materials.

7. Use of AI by Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished research findings, author information, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable research information to public or unauthorized AI tools when doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, copyright, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

AI tools must not replace the independent professional judgment of editors or reviewers. Editorial decisions and peer-review assessments remain the responsibility of the relevant human decision-makers.

Where AI assistance is permitted for limited administrative or language-related purposes, editors and reviewers must ensure that its use is appropriate, confidential, and consistent with the journal's policies.

Reviewers must not delegate the substantive evaluation of a manuscript to an AI tool. Any permitted use of AI assistance in preparing a review must not compromise confidentiality or the reviewer's independent assessment, and must be disclosed to the handling editor when required by the journal.

8. Detection and Assessment of Undisclosed or Inappropriate AI Use

Medical JKK may examine manuscripts when there are reasonable concerns about undisclosed AI use, fabricated references, inaccurate content, image manipulation, plagiarism, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.

AI-detection software and automated indicators may be used, where appropriate, as preliminary screening aids. However, an AI-detection score alone will not be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct.

The editorial team will assess relevant evidence, including the manuscript's content, source verification, research records, author explanations, and other information reasonably available.

Authors may be asked to clarify how AI tools were used or provide supporting information necessary to assess the integrity of their work.

Any editorial action will be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and based on a fair assessment of the available evidence.

9. Editorial Actions and Publication Ethics

If inappropriate AI use or related publication misconduct is established, Medical JKK may take one or more of the following actions, depending on the circumstances:

Request clarification, supporting documentation, or correction.
Require revisions to ensure transparency and scientific accuracy.
Reject the submitted manuscript.
Suspend editorial consideration while the matter is investigated.
Publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for a published article when justified.
Refer the matter to the author's institution or another appropriate authority when warranted.

All such cases will be handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

10. Policy Review

Medical JKK will periodically review this policy to reflect developments in AI technologies, scholarly publishing, research integrity, and publication ethics guidance.

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other relevant parties are expected to comply with the policy applicable to their activities in the journal's publication process.

References and Ethical Guidance

This policy is informed by the following resources:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI Tools. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

Plagiarism and AI Policy