logo

Plagiarism Policy

The Historian, published by the Department of History, Government College University (GCU) Lahore, is committed to the highest standards of scholarly integrity. In accordance with the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism, data fabrication, and unethical content generation.

  1. Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. The Historian recognizes the following violations:

  • Direct Copying: Verbatim use of text from another source without quotation marks and citation.
  • Improper Paraphrasing: Restating someone else’s ideas with only minor changes to the wording and without attribution.
  • Self-Plagiarism: Reusing significant portions of one’s own previously published work (including data or text) without citation or disclosure.
  • Data Fabrication: The construction or falsification of historical data, archival sources, or oral history evidence.
  1. Detection and Screening

To ensure the originality of submitted content, The Historian employs a rigorous screening process:

  • Automated Screening: All manuscripts are screened using Turnitin software to detect similarity with existing literature.
  • Reviewer Vigilance: During the triple-blind peer review process, reviewers are explicitly instructed to alert editors to suspected plagiarism, redundancy, or high similarity.
  1. Similarity Thresholds

In alignment with the journal’s Instructions for Authors, the following strict thresholds apply:

  • Maximum Similarity Index: The similarity index for any manuscript must not exceed 19%.
  • Exclusions: This percentage excludes the reference list/bibliography and properly formatted quotations.

Note: Even if the similarity score is below 19%, manuscripts may still be rejected if the overlap consists of uncredited copying of core arguments or data.

  1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

    a. Scope of Permitted Use This journal permits the use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) for specific research-support tasks, including language editing, proofreading, formatting, and initial conceptual brainstorming. In accordance with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), these tools must be used under strict human oversight and may not be listed as authors. Authorship implies accountability, which AI tools cannot possess.

    b. Human Oversight and Detection: We align our practices with major international publishers, including Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, by prioritizing human editorial review over automated metrics. We acknowledge that current AI detection software can yield inaccurate results and false positives, particularly when authors use software for legitimate language refinement.

    c. Assessment Criteria: Consequently, the journal does not enforce a rigid threshold for "AI probability" or "AI content" scores. Decisions regarding manuscript integrity are based on a holistic editorial assessment of the content's validity and flow, rather than automated detection percentages alone.

    5. Author Responsibilities

To avoid plagiarism and ensure compliance, authors must:

  • Cite Correctly: Follow the Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition) Author-Date system for all in-text citations and bibliographies.
  • Obtain Permissions: Secure copyright clearance for any reproduction of third-party content (images, maps, long quotations).
  • Ensure Exclusivity: Confirm that the manuscript is original, unpublished, and not under consideration by any other journal simultaneously.
  1. Investigation and Consequences

If plagiarism or ethical misconduct is suspected, the editorial team will investigate in line with COPE procedures.

Pre-Publication Penalties:

  • Immediate Rejection: Manuscripts exceeding the 19% threshold or containing confirmed plagiarism will be rejected immediately.
  • Institutional Reporting: Serious infractions (e.g., data fabrication, massive theft of text) may be reported to the author’s affiliated institution.

Post-Publication Penalties:

  • Retraction: If plagiarism is proven after publication, the article will be formally retracted. A retraction notice will be issued, and the article will be watermarked as "Retracted" in the digital archive.
  • Ban: The author may be permanently disqualified from submitting to The Historian in the future.
  1. Appeals

Authors who believe their manuscript was incorrectly flagged for plagiarism (e.g., due to technical errors in the similarity report regarding common historical terminology) may submit a formal appeal.

  • Procedure: Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor within 10 days of the decision.
  • Review: The editorial board will review the specific overlaps and the context of the citations before issuing a final decision.