Plagiarism & Generative AI Policy
The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ) requires submitted and published work to demonstrate appropriate originality, attribution, scholarly integrity, and human accountability. Plagiarism, fabrication of authorship, misleading reuse of previously published material, and irresponsible or undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence may result in editorial investigation and proportionate action.
Others’ words, ideas, data, images, or intellectual contributions must be attributed appropriately.
Similarity reports support editorial assessment but do not independently establish plagiarism.
Material use of GenAI in manuscript preparation should be disclosed in accordance with journal policy.
AI tools cannot be authors and cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy or integrity of a paper.
Originality Is Assessed in Context
TORGJ may use similarity-detection software and other editorial checks to identify potentially problematic overlap. Decisions are based on the nature, extent, location, attribution, explanation, and scholarly significance of the overlap rather than on a similarity percentage alone.
The responsible use of an AI-assisted tool does not automatically constitute plagiarism. The central requirements are human intellectual responsibility, accuracy, appropriate attribution, transparency where required, protection of confidential or personal information, and assurance that generated or assisted content does not introduce fabricated references, false claims, unacknowledged copying, misleading authorship, or other breaches of research integrity.
What Constitutes Plagiarism?
Plagiarism occurs when words, ideas, data, methods, images, analyses, creative material, or other intellectual contributions are presented in a way that does not appropriately acknowledge their true source or creates a misleading impression of originality or authorship.
Direct Plagiarism
Reproducing another person’s words or substantial textual expression without appropriate quotation, citation, permission where required, or other acknowledgement of the original source.
Mosaic Plagiarism & Patchwriting
Combining copied phrases, sentence structures, or lightly altered wording from one or more sources in a manner that remains substantially dependent on the original expression without adequate attribution.
Unattributed Paraphrasing
Restating another author’s ideas, arguments, interpretation, or findings in different words without citing the source from which those ideas were derived.
Idea or Concept Plagiarism
Presenting another person’s original concept, hypothesis, framework, method, analysis, or intellectual contribution as though it originated with the submitting author.
Data or Results Plagiarism
Using another researcher’s data, numerical results, analyses, datasets, observations, or findings without appropriate acknowledgement, permission, collaboration, or legitimate rights to use the material.
Image, Figure or Table Plagiarism
Reproducing or adapting figures, photographs, illustrations, diagrams, tables, or other visual material without appropriate attribution and, where required, permission from the rights holder.
Translation Plagiarism
Translating another person’s previously published or unpublished work into a different language and presenting the translation as original work without appropriate attribution.
Inappropriate Text Recycling
Reusing substantial portions of an author’s own previously disseminated wording without appropriate acknowledgement, transparency, or justification, particularly where the reuse creates a misleading impression that the material is entirely new.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Republishing substantially the same data, analysis, findings, or article in more than one publication without appropriate disclosure, cross-reference, editorial agreement, or legitimate justification.
Previous Work by the Same Author Still Requires Transparency
Authors do not plagiarise themselves in exactly the same way that they can misappropriate another person’s work, but inappropriate reuse of previously published material may mislead readers about originality and may raise copyright, duplicate-publication, or research-integrity concerns.
Plagiarism Is Not Limited to Written Prose
Intellectual misappropriation may involve many forms of scholarly material. Authors should acknowledge the true source and obtain permission where required.
Misleading Attribution & Source Manipulation
Appropriate citation requires more than inserting a reference number. Authors should not cite a source that does not support the stated claim, attribute an idea to a secondary source while concealing the true original source where this is materially misleading, fabricate citations, reference sources that were not consulted in a misleading manner, or use citations to disguise unattributed copying. Citation practices should enable readers to identify the genuine intellectual and evidential basis of the manuscript.
Poor citation practice, misunderstanding of paraphrasing, language difficulties, or accidental omission may differ ethically from deliberate appropriation. TORGJ may consider intent, extent, recurrence, career stage, explanation, and impact when deciding what action is proportionate. However, authors remain responsible for correcting inappropriate attribution even where there was no deliberate intention to plagiarise.
Similarity Screening & Interpretation
TORGJ may screen submitted manuscripts using Turnitin, iThenticate, or another appropriate similarity-detection system. Similarity reports are used as editorial tools to identify potentially problematic overlap and must be interpreted in context by an editor or other appropriately designated reviewer.
Similarity Software Supports Editorial Review
Similarity-detection systems compare manuscript text with available sources and highlight matching material. They do not independently determine whether the overlap is legitimate, appropriately attributed, or plagiarised.
Context Matters
Editors consider where the matching text occurs, whether the original source is cited, whether wording is standard or unavoidable, and whether the overlap materially misrepresents originality.
Scores Do Not Replace Human Judgement
A manuscript with a low similarity score may still contain serious plagiarism, while a manuscript with a higher score may contain legitimate overlap. The substance of the matches is therefore more important than the percentage alone.
What TORGJ Considers When Reviewing a Similarity Report
Editors should evaluate both the quantitative score and the qualitative nature of the identified overlap.
Possible Outcomes After Similarity Screening
The appropriate response depends on the extent, context, attribution, explanation, and seriousness of the identified overlap.
Software may identify textual resemblance but cannot reliably determine authorship, intent, legitimate quotation, appropriate reuse, copyright status, or the scholarly context of every match. Decisions regarding plagiarism or redundant publication therefore require editorial interpretation and, where appropriate, further evidence or author response.
Responsible Use of Generative AI
TORGJ recognises that generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools may support aspects of scholarly work. Their use does not remove the requirement for human intellectual contribution, verification, transparency, confidentiality, appropriate attribution, and full responsibility for the submitted manuscript.
Grammar & Language Improvement
AI-assisted tools may be used to improve grammar, spelling, readability, or language expression, provided authors verify the final text and the tool does not alter the scientific meaning or introduce inaccurate information.
Structural Assistance
Authors may use appropriate tools to assist with organisation, formatting, outlining, or presentation, provided the authors remain responsible for the scholarly reasoning, evidence, interpretation, and final manuscript.
Limited Research Assistance
AI tools may support selected technical activities where scientifically appropriate, but their outputs must be independently checked and any use that materially contributes to methods, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript content should be disclosed appropriately.
Material GenAI Use Should Be Disclosed
Authors should disclose generative-AI use where it materially contributed to the preparation, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of the work. The disclosure should be sufficiently clear for editors and readers to understand what role the tool played.
Authors Must Independently Verify AI-Assisted Output
Generative-AI systems may produce plausible but inaccurate content. Responsibility for verification remains entirely with the human authors.
Protect Confidential, Personal & Sensitive Information
Authors should not upload identifiable patient information, confidential research data, unpublished third-party material, privileged peer-review correspondence, proprietary information, confidential institutional documents, or other protected information into external generative-AI systems unless its use is lawful, ethically appropriate, authorised where required, and compatible with applicable confidentiality and data-protection obligations.
“During manuscript preparation, the authors used a generative-AI tool for language and readability support. All generated or revised text was reviewed, edited, and verified by the authors, who retain full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the manuscript.” Where AI was used for analysis, coding, image generation, data processing, or another substantive research function, the disclosure should provide more specific methodological detail.
Prohibited & High-Risk Uses of Generative AI
Generative AI must not be used in ways that fabricate, falsify, misrepresent, conceal, or compromise the integrity of scholarly work. Authors remain responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted processes do not introduce false evidence, invented sources, inappropriate attribution, confidentiality breaches, or misleading representations of human scholarship.
Invented Data or Results
AI must not be used to fabricate research participants, observations, datasets, measurements, statistical results, quotations, clinical findings, laboratory findings, survey responses, or other evidence represented as real.
Fabricated Citations
Authors must not include references generated by an AI system without verifying that each source exists, is accurately described, and genuinely supports the statement for which it is cited.
AI-Assisted Plagiarism
AI must not be used to disguise copied material, paraphrase another person’s work for the purpose of avoiding attribution, or obscure the true intellectual source of words, ideas, data, methods, images, or findings.
Undisclosed Substitution for Authorship
Authors must not use generative AI to substitute substantially for the intellectual contribution, critical reasoning, interpretation, or accountability expected from human authors while presenting the work as independently authored.
Invented Quotations or Sources
AI-generated quotations, attributed statements, policies, guidelines, legal provisions, clinical recommendations, or source summaries must not be represented as genuine without verification against the authoritative original source.
False Claims of Verification
Authors must not state that information, references, analyses, or AI outputs have been independently verified when such verification has not actually been performed.
Generative AI Must Never Create False Research Evidence
AI-generated material must not be presented as genuine empirical evidence when the underlying observation, participant, procedure, measurement, image, source, or event did not exist.
AI-Generated or AI-Modified Images & Visual Evidence
The use of AI in figures, photographs, imaging, illustrations, or other visual material requires particular caution. Authors must not use AI to alter research evidence in a way that creates, removes, obscures, or misrepresents scientifically relevant information.
Confidential Manuscripts & Peer Review
Editors and reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished figures, identifiable author information, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or other protected manuscript content into external generative-AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, data protection, or the integrity of the peer-review process. Any authorised use of AI-assisted editorial tools must remain consistent with TORGJ’s confidentiality and peer-review requirements.
The convenience of an AI tool does not override patient confidentiality, research-participant protections, data-protection requirements, contractual obligations, intellectual-property rights, embargoes, or the confidentiality of unpublished scholarly material. Users are responsible for understanding how an external AI service processes, stores, retains, or reuses information before providing protected content to that service.
Misuse of AI May Become a Research-Integrity Matter
Where AI use appears to have resulted in fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misleading authorship, serious non-disclosure, confidentiality breaches, manipulated evidence, or another potential integrity violation, TORGJ may pause editorial consideration, request supporting records or an author explanation, reject the manuscript, or initiate further action under the journal’s Publication Ethics & Malpractice Policy.
Editorial Assessment & Actions Before Publication
Where plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, misleading attribution, duplicate publication, fabricated citations, or problematic generative-AI use is suspected before publication, TORGJ will assess the concern proportionately and may seek clarification or supporting evidence before deciding what action is appropriate.
Correctable Attribution Problem
Limited citation omissions, isolated inappropriate paraphrasing, or minor text-recycling concerns may sometimes be addressed through correction, rewriting, or clarification before peer review or publication continues.
Significant Unattributed Overlap
Extensive or important overlap involving substantive sections, intellectual contributions, results, interpretation, or multiple sources may require formal clarification and may lead to rejection.
Possible Deliberate Misconduct
Evidence suggesting deliberate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, deceptive duplicate publication, fabricated references, or intentional concealment may trigger broader publication-ethics assessment.
How TORGJ May Assess a Suspected Integrity Problem
The exact process depends on the seriousness and evidence available, but the journal may take several steps before determining the outcome.
Possible Pre-Publication Actions
Depending on the findings, TORGJ may take one or more of the following actions.
Where credible evidence suggests significant research or publication misconduct that may require investigation beyond TORGJ’s editorial remit, the journal may communicate with the authors’ institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funder, publisher, regulator, or another appropriate body in accordance with recognised publication- ethics procedures and applicable legal obligations.
Concerns Identified After Publication
Publication does not prevent later investigation of credible originality, plagiarism, attribution, duplicate publication, fabricated-reference, generative-AI, or other research-integrity concerns. Where a material problem is confirmed after publication, TORGJ will seek to correct the scholarly record transparently and proportionately.
Limited Attribution or Citation Error
Where the central findings remain reliable and the concern can be addressed through accurate attribution, citation, wording, or another limited amendment, a formal correction may be appropriate.
Investigation Is Still Ongoing
Where there are substantial grounds for concern but the available evidence is incomplete, TORGJ may issue an expression of concern or another appropriate notice while further clarification or investigation proceeds.
Retraction May Be Required
Retraction may be appropriate where plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, manipulated evidence, serious AI misuse, or another integrity problem materially undermines the reliability, originality, or legitimacy of the published article.
How a Post-Publication Concern May Be Assessed
TORGJ may review the published article, submission record, similarity evidence, related publications, author explanations, source documents, and other relevant material before determining the appropriate action.
Possible Post-Publication Actions
The action selected should reflect the nature and seriousness of the confirmed or unresolved concern.
The Journal Does Not Replace Institutional Investigation
TORGJ can assess the reliability and publication status of material within its journal, but institutions or other authorised bodies may be better placed to investigate allegations concerning research conduct, employment, laboratory records, original data, participant recruitment, funding, or professional misconduct. The journal may cooperate with appropriate investigations and may act on reliable findings communicated by responsible institutions.
Where an article is corrected, subject to an expression of concern, or retracted, the original DOI and bibliographic identity should ordinarily remain part of the scholarly record. Relevant notices should be linked clearly to the article, and the article’s status should be made apparent to readers in accordance with the journal’s retraction and correction procedures.
Appeals, Complaints & Author Response
Authors may respond to originality, plagiarism, generative-AI, duplicate-publication, or related research-integrity concerns and may appeal an editorial decision where there is a substantive basis to believe that material evidence, context, or procedure was misunderstood or overlooked.
Clarify the Evidence
Where TORGJ raises an originality or AI-use concern, authors may be asked to explain the identified material, provide original sources, related publications, permissions, underlying records, or other evidence relevant to the journal’s assessment.
Request Reconsideration
An author may appeal where there is a substantive scholarly, factual, procedural, ethical, or conflict-of-interest basis for reconsidering an editorial decision relating to plagiarism, AI use, or publication integrity.
Raise a Process Concern
Complaints may concern inappropriate communication, unreasonable handling, confidentiality, conflict of interest, procedural fairness, or another material concern about how an integrity issue was assessed.
What an Appeal Should Include
A useful appeal identifies the specific reason the original decision may require reconsideration and provides relevant evidence rather than simply expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Appeals Should Be Reviewed Without Relevant Conflicts
Where an appeal concerns an editor who made or materially influenced the original decision, TORGJ should, where reasonably possible, refer the matter to another appropriately qualified editor or senior editorial representative who is not materially conflicted. The appeal may result in confirmation, modification, or reversal of the original decision.
Readers, reviewers, editors, authors, institutions, and other parties may raise credible integrity concerns without improper retaliation. Similarly, authors should be able to provide a reasoned explanation or appeal without that act itself being treated as misconduct. TORGJ may, however, take appropriate action where communications are knowingly false, abusive, threatening, fraudulent, or persistently vexatious.
Submit an Appeal or Integrity-Policy Enquiry
Include the manuscript ID or DOI where applicable, identify the issue clearly, and provide relevant supporting evidence or explanation.
International Standards & Related Policies
TORGJ’s approach to plagiarism, attribution, generative AI, originality screening, and publication integrity is informed by recognised international guidance and should be read alongside the journal’s wider editorial and ethics framework.
External Guidance Informing TORGJ Practice
TORGJ may consider relevant guidance from established publication-ethics and medical-editing organisations when evaluating originality, authorship, artificial intelligence, duplicate publication, and other research-integrity concerns.
AI and Publishing Standards Continue to Evolve
TORGJ may review and update this policy periodically to reflect developments in generative AI, similarity-detection technology, publication ethics, copyright, research governance, data protection, indexing requirements, and scholarly publishing practice.
Consult the Online Policy
The version displayed on the official TORGJ website should be regarded as the journal’s current published policy. Older downloaded or circulated versions may no longer reflect current requirements.
Technology May Assist Scholarship; Accountability Remains Human.
TORGJ supports responsible innovation in scholarly communication while maintaining that originality, attribution, evidence verification, ethical judgement, authorship, and accountability remain human responsibilities. Neither similarity software nor generative AI replaces careful editorial assessment or responsible scholarly conduct.
Plagiarism, Originality & GenAI Enquiries
For questions concerning originality screening, citation or attribution, previous dissemination, generative-AI disclosure, suspected plagiarism, or an integrity concern involving a submitted or published article, contact the TORGJ Editorial Office.
Submit Original, Transparent & Verifiable Research
Before submitting to TORGJ, authors should ensure that sources are properly attributed, related prior work is disclosed, references are verified, third-party permissions are in place where required, and any material generative-AI assistance is transparently reported in accordance with this policy.