Editorial Integrity and Similarity Screening Policy

Version 1.0 · Effective 22 Julio 2026

Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía SPA is committed to publishing only original works that have been evaluated by external peer reviewers and produced with academic integrity. This policy describes how we prevent, detect and handle plagiarism, improper text reuse and other breaches of integrity, and how we use similarity screening tools.

1. Scope and reference framework

This policy applies to every work published by Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía: monographs, edited volumes, chapters, forewords, critical editions and supplementary materials, in any format and language. It binds authors, volume editors, reviewers, editorial staff and the owners of the press.

It draws on the following references, which the press adopts as its guide to practice:

• The Core Practices, flowcharts and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular the Text Recycling Guidelines and the position on acceptable levels of duplication.
• The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME).
• The OASPA membership criteria and the DOAB requirements for book publishers.
• The Crossref Similarity Check terms of use.

Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía is a publisher admitted to and indexed in the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), which evaluates publishers’ peer review and licensing policies before accepting them. COPE’s guidelines and OASPA’s criteria are adopted voluntarily: their mention indicates the reference framework followed and does not imply certification, membership or endorsement by those organisations.

This policy complements, and does not replace, the press’s Conflict of Interest Policy, Retraction and Correction Policy and Publication Guidelines.

2. Definitions

• Plagiarism: presenting other people’s ideas, text, data, images or lines of argument as one’s own without proper attribution, whether the copying is verbatim, translated or paraphrased.
• Text recycling (self-plagiarism): sections of the same text appearing, usually without attribution, in more than one publication by the same author. It is assessed by its extent, location and transparency, in line with COPE’s guidelines.
• Redundant or duplicate publication: publishing the same research, or substantial parts of it, in more than one primary work without disclosure or citation.
• Fabrication and falsification: inventing data or results, or manipulating data, methods, images or citations so that the research is not accurately represented.
• Similarity index: the percentage of a manuscript’s text that matches sources indexed by the screening tool. It is a technical indicator of textual overlap, not a measure of plagiarism or originality.
• Source: each document with which the manuscript shows overlap. The percentage of the single largest source is as relevant as the overall index.

3. Responsibilities of authors and volume editors

On submitting a manuscript, each author declares and warrants that:

1. The work is original, has not been published before and is not under consideration elsewhere, and all sources are cited in the chosen citation style.
2. Any related prior publication has been disclosed in writing: theses, articles, chapters, reports or texts posted in repositories or as preprints, stating which parts are reused and how.
3. The author holds the permissions needed to reproduce long quotations, images, tables and third-party material, and will credit them in the work.
4. Any use of generative artificial intelligence tools has been disclosed in accordance with section 7.
5. All funding sources and conflicts of interest have been disclosed in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy.
6. All co-authors have approved the submitted version and meet the authorship criteria; contributors who are not authors are named in the acknowledgements.

In edited volumes, the volume editor is responsible for conveying these obligations to each chapter author and for informing the press of any issue. These declarations are formalised by digital signature before peer review begins.

4. Similarity screening

All manuscripts are screened with Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, at two points: before they are sent for peer review, and on the final approved version before typesetting. In edited volumes, screening is carried out chapter by chapter.

The similarity report is an internal tool that supports editorial decisions. It does not in itself prove plagiarism or certify the originality of a work: the tool detects textual overlap only and does not identify unattributed paraphrase, translation or the appropriation of ideas. Every report is therefore examined by a member of the editorial team, who assesses the nature, extent, location and attribution of the matches.

Legitimate overlap includes, among other cases: properly attributed quotations, technical terminology and standard phrasing, standardised methodological descriptions, institutional names and bibliographic references.

Filters applied in all analyses:

• Bibliographies and reference lists are excluded.
• Quotations that are properly set in quotation marks or as block quotes are excluded.
• Matches of fewer than 8 words are excluded.
• Sources by the author or by the press itself are not excluded; such matches are assessed under section 6.
• Any additional manual exclusion is justified in writing in the file.

Whenever a percentage is communicated, the tool, the date, the version analysed and the filters applied are always stated. A percentage without this information is not comparable and is not used.

5. Reference values

In line with COPE’s position, the press does not use a percentage as an automatic criterion for acceptance or rejection. The following values trigger increasing levels of editorial review; the final decision always rests on a qualitative analysis of the matches.

A manuscript with a low index may be rejected if qualitative review detects plagiarism, and one with a high index may be approved if the matches are legitimate and attributed. In both cases the decision and its grounds are recorded in the editorial file.

6. Reuse of the author’s own texts and theses

Reuse of the author’s own thesis, previous articles or passages from earlier works is permitted when three conditions are met: it is disclosed on submission, it is cited in the text, and the author holds the necessary rights under the licence or contract of the original publication.

A book built from previous articles must constitute a substantially new contribution, integrating, updating or expanding the content, rather than a compilation of texts already published. The press assesses this condition at the suitability stage.

Doctoral theses published without substantial transformation are placed in series without peer review, since they have already been evaluated by an academic committee. Undisclosed reuse is handled under COPE’s flowcharts on redundant publication and may lead to return, rejection or, if the work has already been published, correction or retraction.

7. Use of generative artificial intelligence

Generative artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, because they cannot take responsibility for the work or declare conflicts of interest.

Authors may use these tools to support writing, translation, copy-editing or data analysis, provided they disclose it in the work, stating the tool, the version and the purpose of use. Basic spelling and grammar correction does not require disclosure.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality and correct attribution of all content, including content generated or assisted by artificial intelligence, and must verify that references exist and say what is attributed to them.

Reviewers and editorial staff do not upload manuscripts or review reports to artificial intelligence tools that do not guarantee the confidentiality of the content. The press may use support tools to detect integrity problems, always with human review of the results.

8. Confidentiality and transparency

Manuscripts, reviewers’ reports and similarity reports are confidential documents. Access is limited to authorised editorial staff, the assigned reviewers and the author.

The full similarity report is shared privately with the author and, where necessary, with the reviewers or the Editorial Committee. It is not published, for three reasons: the Crossref Similarity Check terms of use restrict the service to the internal purposes of the editorial process; the report reproduces passages from third-party works; and an isolated percentage invites mistaken readings of a work’s originality.

What the press makes public for each work:

• The peer review model applied, recorded in DOAB’s PRISM service and visible on the work’s page.
• A statement that the work was subjected to similarity screening in accordance with this policy.
• The Creative Commons licence, DOI, ISBN and the declarations of funding, conflicts of interest and use of artificial intelligence.

What the press provides to the author:

• The consolidated peer review report.
• A one-page similarity screening certificate stating the tool, date, report identifier, overall index, largest single source, filters applied, reference values and editorial assessment, verifiable with the press. The author may present it to their institution or to any evaluation body that requests it.

9. Procedure for suspected misconduct

Suspicions may arise from similarity screening, from reviewers, from readers or from third parties, and may be reported to editorial@cuadernosdesofia.com. All are handled confidentially, with a presumption of good faith and in accordance with COPE’s flowcharts.

Before publication

1. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the evidence and, where appropriate, asks the author for a written explanation within 10 working days.
2. Depending on the response and the seriousness of the case, the press may accept the explanation, request corrections, suspend the evaluation or reject the manuscript.
3. In serious cases, such as substantial plagiarism or data fabrication, the press may inform the author’s institution.

After publication

1. The Editorial Committee reviews the case within 10 to 15 working days, consulting the author and, where necessary, external reviewers.
2. Depending on the outcome, a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction is published, in accordance with section 11.
3. The decision is communicated to the author in writing, with its grounds and the route of appeal.

The editorial process is suspended while a suspicion is resolved. All actions are recorded in the book’s file in Open Monograph Press.

10. Conflicts of interest and editorial independence

Authors, reviewers and editors sign a declaration of absence of conflicts of interest before review begins, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy. Reviewers come from institutions other than the author’s and have not collaborated with the author in the past three years.

Decisions to accept or reject rest with the Editorial Committee, on the basis of the external reviewers’ reports. The owners of the press take no part in those decisions, and payment for editorial services never conditions the outcome of peer review or the application of this policy.

11. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

The press corrects the scholarly record when a published work contains errors or breaches of integrity, in accordance with the Retraction and Correction Policy:

• Correction: for errors that do not invalidate the work; a linked notice is published and the files are updated while the DOI is retained.
• Expression of concern: when an investigation is under way or a well-founded doubt cannot be resolved immediately.
• Retraction: for substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, fabrication or falsification of data, or any other serious breach. The work remains accessible, marked “Retracted”, with a notice explaining the reasons.

In all cases the metadata are updated in Crossref and DOAB and the distribution platforms are notified. The original version is preserved to ensure traceability.

12. Complaints, appeals and review of this policy

Authors may appeal any decision taken under this policy within 15 working days of its notification, through the Formal Appeals Process set out in the Publication Guidelines. Appeals are decided by a subcommittee that excludes those who took the original decision.

Complaints about the conduct of the press should be addressed to editorial@cuadernosdesofia.com and are answered within 10 working days.

This policy is reviewed at least once a year and whenever COPE, OASPA or DOAB update their guidance. The current version, with its date, is published at books.cuadernosdesofia.com.