Plagiarism and Similarity Policy
The Critical Patient Journal (RDC) considers plagiarism, in any of its forms, a serious violation of scientific integrity and ethical principles that govern research and academic publication.
In particular, the following constitute unacceptable practices:
● Direct or full plagiarism;
● Plagiarism by paraphrasing or substantial reproduction of content without proper attribution;
● Self-plagiarism or undeclared reuse of previously published works;
● Duplicate or redundant publication;
● Inadequate fragmentation of research results (salami publication);
● Translation and undeclared publication of previously published works;
● Misuse of text, data, images, tables, figures or other copyrighted materials without permission or attribution.
⮚ Similarity Detection Tools
All manuscripts submitted to the RDC may be submitted to originality verification through internationally recognized similarity detection software, namely:
● iThenticate; https://www.ithenticate.com/
● Crossref Similarity Check; https://www.crossref.org/documentation/similarity-check/participate/
● Turnitin; https://www.turnitin.pt/
● other equivalent tools that may be adopted by the Journal.
⮚ Evaluation of Similarity Reports
The existence of similarity identified by the detection systems does not determine, by itself, the automatic rejection of the manuscript. The Editorial Team will carry out an individualized analysis of each report, considering, among other aspects:
● the nature, extent and context of the identified correspondences;
● The origin of text overlays;
● The correct citation and referencing of the sources used;
● The legitimate and duly identified reuse of methodological descriptions, protocols, instruments, normative documents or other content whose repetition is scientifically justifiable;
● The possible existence of redundant publication, self-plagiarism or improper reuse of works previously published by the authors;
● Any other elements relevant to the evaluation of the originality and scientific integrity of the manuscript.
The RDC does not establish a percentage similarity threshold as the sole criterion for acceptance or rejection, as the assessment is made on the basis of the nature, relevance and context of the identified matches.
Whenever situations are detected that may constitute plagiarism or other form of scientific misconduct, authors may be invited to provide clarifications, present additional documentation or make the corrections deemed necessary.
Whenever there is substantiated evidence of plagiarism or other form of misuse of content, the editorial process may be suspended until the conclusion of the respective evaluation.
Once the existence of plagiarism, redundant publication or any other violation of scientific integrity is confirmed, the DRC may adopt, depending on the nature and severity of the situation, one or more of the following measures:
● Immediate rejection of the manuscript;
● Suspension or closure of the editorial process;
● Communication of the situation to the authors' affiliation institutions, funding entities or other competent entities, when applicable;
● Publication of corrections, expressions of concern or retractions, if the irregularity is identified after publication;
● Adoption of other measures deemed necessary to safeguard the integrity of the scientific record.
The management of suspected and confirmed cases of plagiarism will be carried out in accordance with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), as well as with the guidelines, flowcharts and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring fair, confidential, proportionate procedures based on the best available evidence.
