Why plagiarism policy matters in AAAI
Archives of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (AAAI) publishes research that may inform clinical practice and public health decisions. Plagiarism undermines trust in the scholarly record, misattributes credit, and can mislead readers about who produced the evidence. In medical disciplines—where guidelines, meta-analyses, and clinical decisions depend on reliable literature— protecting originality and attribution is essential.
AAAI therefore maintains a strict, transparent approach to plagiarism prevention and response. This policy complements the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Peer Review Policy, and Withdrawal Policy. Together, they support responsible publishing and fair treatment of all contributors.
Key point
Plagiarism is not only “copy-paste.” It includes unattributed paraphrasing, reuse of figures without permission, and misleading reuse of one’s own prior work without disclosure.
Definitions: what counts as plagiarism?
Plagiarism is presenting another person’s words, ideas, data, or creative work as your own without proper acknowledgment. It can occur in text, figures, tables, images, graphs, supplementary files, and even in methods descriptions when substantial unique phrasing is reused without citation.
Common forms of plagiarism
- Verbatim copying: copying sentences or paragraphs without quotation and citation.
- Patchwork (mosaic) plagiarism: combining copied phrases from multiple sources with minor edits.
- Inadequate paraphrasing: changing a few words but preserving the original structure or meaning without citation.
- Idea plagiarism: using another’s concepts, hypotheses, or interpretations without acknowledgment.
- Figure/table plagiarism: reusing images, diagrams, tables, or graphical elements without permission and proper credit.
- Translation plagiarism: translating content from another language and presenting it as original without citation.
Self-plagiarism and redundant publication
“Self-plagiarism” refers to reusing substantial parts of your own previously published work without disclosure. While authors may legitimately reuse certain standard descriptions (for example, routine laboratory methods), it becomes problematic when: the reuse is extensive, makes the work appear novel when it is not, or duplicates previously published results. AAAI expects transparency: if a manuscript is derived from prior work (conference paper, preprint, thesis, earlier article), disclose this clearly and cite the source.
Acceptable overlap (typical examples)
Limited overlap can be acceptable in structured settings (e.g., standard methods language, ethics statements, trial registration text), but it must not obscure novelty. If in doubt, cite your prior work and explain the relationship in the cover letter.
Similarity reports: how AAAI interprets them
AAAI uses similarity checks as a screening tool, not as an automatic decision-maker. Similarity software typically produces a percentage score and highlights matched text. However, a similarity score alone does not prove plagiarism. Some overlap is common and legitimate—especially in medical writing—because of standardized terminology, reference lists, and conventional phrasing in methods.
What editors look at (beyond the percentage)
- Location of overlap: overlap in the introduction or methods may be treated differently than overlap in results or discussion.
- Nature of overlap: common phrases vs. unique sentences; paraphrase quality; presence of citations.
- Source diversity: overlap from one source vs. multiple sources; overlap with the authors’ own prior work.
- Figure/table reuse: images and tables require specific scrutiny because permissions and provenance matter.
- Intent and transparency: whether authors disclosed related manuscripts and cited appropriately.
| Low overlap (contextual) | May be acceptable, especially if located in methods/common phrasing and properly cited. |
|---|---|
| Moderate overlap | Often triggers editorial review and may require rewriting, added citations, or clarification of novelty. |
| High overlap or concentrated blocks | May indicate plagiarism or redundant publication; can result in rejection or formal investigation. |
No single “magic” threshold
AAAI does not rely on a single similarity percentage to decide. Editorial judgment is applied. Even a low percentage can be serious if it includes copied results or unique interpretations.
AAAI screening workflow
Plagiarism screening can occur at multiple stages: at submission, during peer review, during revision, and (rarely) after publication if concerns are raised by readers or indexers. AAAI’s approach is to detect issues early, communicate clearly, and apply proportionate responses.
Typical pre-publication steps
- Initial screening: editorial staff checks manuscript completeness and runs a similarity scan where applicable.
- Editorial assessment: an editor evaluates highlighted overlaps in context and checks citations.
- Author clarification (if needed): authors may be asked to revise text, add citations, or explain overlap with earlier work.
- Peer review: reviewers may also flag overlap, image reuse, or redundant publication.
- Final verification: before acceptance/production, the journal may re-check if major revisions occurred.
Post-publication signals
Even after publication, plagiarism concerns can surface (e.g., a reader notices copied text, an author reports unauthorized reuse, or an indexing partner flags duplication). AAAI investigates credible concerns and updates the record when necessary through corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.
Consequences and actions
AAAI responds proportionally based on the severity, extent, and context of overlap. The journal also considers whether the issue can be corrected transparently without undermining the reliability of the work.
Possible outcomes (pre-publication)
- Revision required: rewrite overlapping text, add citations, and clarify novelty.
- Major revision with documentation: provide permission letters for figures/tables or disclose related publications.
- Rejection: for substantial plagiarism, deceptive presentation, or unresolved concerns.
- Editorial integrity review: for complex cases (e.g., suspected paper mill, peer review manipulation).
Possible outcomes (post-publication)
| Correction | Used when attribution errors or limited overlap can be transparently fixed without invalidating findings. |
|---|---|
| Expression of concern | Used when an investigation is ongoing and readers should be alerted to potential reliability issues. |
| Retraction | Used when the work is unreliable or when plagiarism/redundant publication materially compromises integrity. |
| Notification | In serious cases, the journal may notify relevant institutions, funders, or oversight bodies. |
Fair handling
AAAI aims to handle cases with due process. Authors are generally given an opportunity to respond and provide clarification unless immediate action is required.
How authors can prevent plagiarism problems
Most avoidable plagiarism issues arise from rushed writing, unclear citation habits, or misunderstanding of what constitutes “common knowledge” in a field. The following practical steps reduce risk:
- Cite as you write: add citations during drafting, not at the end.
- Paraphrase properly: rewrite in your own structure and voice; do not mirror sentence structure.
- Use quotes sparingly: direct quotations are uncommon in scientific writing; if used, quote and cite clearly.
- Disclose related works: mention preprints, conference abstracts, theses, or earlier papers and explain differences.
- Rebuild figures if needed: create original diagrams; do not reuse copyrighted figures without permission.
- Check before submission: use internal similarity checks and correct issues proactively.
“A preprint version of this manuscript is available at [URL]. The submitted manuscript includes additional analyses, expanded methods, and revised discussion; it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
Appeals and disputes
If authors believe a plagiarism-related decision was based on misunderstanding or incorrect matching (for example, overlap caused by a standard guideline text, a publicly licensed method description, or the authors’ own properly cited preprint), they may submit a written appeal to the editorial office. Appeals should be specific and evidence-based: identify the flagged sections, provide the source references, and explain why the overlap is legitimate or how it will be corrected.
AAAI may seek additional editorial review during an appeal. The goal is accuracy and fairness—not punishment—while protecting the scholarly record.
Frequently asked questions
Is it plagiarism if I reuse my own methods section?
Limited reuse of standard methods language may be acceptable, but substantial reuse without citation and explanation can be considered self-plagiarism. Cite your prior work and clarify what is new in the current manuscript.
What about reuse of definitions or guideline statements?
Standard definitions can appear similar across manuscripts, but unique phrasing should be cited. When using guideline text, cite the guideline and avoid large verbatim blocks.
Can I reuse a figure from another article if I cite it?
Citation alone is not always enough. Many figures are copyrighted; you may need permission unless the figure is openly licensed (e.g., CC BY) or you created it yourself. If you reuse/modify a figure, follow third-party permissions and label the legend properly.
Does AAAI use a strict similarity percentage cut-off?
AAAI uses similarity reports as a tool, but editorial judgment is applied. Context matters: where overlap occurs, whether it is properly cited, and whether it affects novelty or reliability.
What happens if plagiarism is discovered after publication?
AAAI investigates credible concerns and may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction depending on severity. The journal may notify institutions where appropriate.
