Similarity or Plagiarism Detection Policies

MENTOR Revista de Investigación Educativa y Deportiva promotes the originality, integrity, and transparency of manuscripts submitted for evaluation and applies procedures designed to identify potential issues involving textual similarity, plagiarism, undisclosed reuse of content, duplicate or redundant publication, and other practices contrary to academic integrity.

Similarity Screening

All manuscripts submitted to MENTOR undergo similarity screening using Turnitin during the initial editorial assessment and before external peer review.

Turnitin is used as a supporting tool in the editorial process to identify textual matches that may require further examination. The similarity percentage generated by the tool does not in itself constitute evidence of plagiarism and does not automatically determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

The results are assessed by the editorial team, taking into account the nature and extent of the matches, appropriate attribution of sources, the type of content identified, the discipline, the characteristics of the manuscript, and any other relevant circumstances.

MENTOR does not establish a single similarity percentage as an automatic criterion for determining plagiarism or deciding whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is understood as the use of ideas, text, data, images, results, or other content belonging to others without appropriate acknowledgment and attribution when such content is presented, in whole or in part, as one’s own.

Substantial unattributed reproduction, appropriation of content, misleading presentation of material belonging to others, and any other use of sources without appropriate acknowledgment are also considered contrary to academic integrity.

Reuse of Authors’ Own Content and Redundant Publication

Previously published content by the same authors must be appropriately cited, identified, and, where applicable, justified.

MENTOR may consider substantial and undisclosed reuse of previously published content presented as new and original to be an integrity concern, as well as duplicate or redundant publication of substantially the same results without appropriate transparency.

Reuse of authors’ own content will not be determined solely by the existence of textual matches. The editorial team will assess the context, extent of reuse, presence of appropriate attribution, and relationship between the submitted manuscript and previous publications.

Editorial Action in Cases of Similarity or Potential Plagiarism

When similarity screening identifies matches requiring further assessment, the editorial team will evaluate the case before making a decision.

Where isolated phrases or passages present citation or attribution problems without evidence of substantial appropriation of ideas or content, authors may be asked to correct citations, add the appropriate references, or revise the identified passages. The revised version may be screened again for similarity.

Where editorial assessment confirms substantial plagiarism, unattributed appropriation of content, serious duplicate or redundant publication, or other conduct that compromises the originality of the manuscript, the manuscript will be rejected. Authors will be informed of the decision and the grounds on which it was based.

Where authors fail to make the requested corrections, do not provide the required clarification, or substantial integrity concerns remain after revision, the manuscript may be rejected through a reasoned editorial decision.

Where appropriate, MENTOR may request additional documentation from the authors and apply guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when assessing and managing potential cases of editorial or research misconduct.

The presence of textual similarity does not automatically indicate plagiarism or misconduct. All decisions are made through human editorial assessment of the specific circumstances of the manuscript.

Deadline for Corrections

Where similarity-related concerns can be resolved through corrections before the manuscript continues through the editorial process, authors must submit a revised version within the deadline communicated by the editorial team.

Unless a different deadline is specified, authors will have up to thirty calendar days to make the requested corrections. Where duly justified circumstances exist, an extension may be requested before the deadline expires.

Self-Citations and References to Authors’ Previous Work

MENTOR does not establish a predetermined maximum number of self-citations.

References to authors’ previous work must be academically relevant, necessary for understanding the study, and used with the same critical and justified approach as any other source.

The editorial team may request revisions where self-citations are irrelevant, excessive in relation to the scientific needs of the manuscript, or used for the purpose of manipulating citation indicators.

Self-citations must be properly identified and must not be used to conceal substantial reuse of previously published content.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers may inform the editorial team of potential indications of unattributed similarity, duplicate or redundant publication, citation manipulation, data inconsistencies, or other integrity concerns identified during peer review.

These observations may be recorded through the OJS platform, the Peer Review Evaluation Matrix, or other mechanisms established by MENTOR.

Reviewers are not responsible for making a final determination of plagiarism or misconduct.

To protect the confidentiality of the review process, reviewers must not independently upload manuscripts or excerpts to external similarity-detection services. Systematic similarity screening is the responsibility of MENTOR’s editorial team.

Confidentiality and Editorial Oversight

Similarity-checking tools must be used in accordance with the confidentiality and information-protection obligations applicable to the editorial process.

The results obtained are used exclusively for editorial assessment and publication-integrity purposes.

Any automated detection of potential integrity concerns will be reviewed by a member of the editorial team before a decision is made.

MENTOR uses Turnitin as a supporting tool for textual similarity screening.