Tourist Destination (TD) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and publication ethics. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo similarity and plagiarism screening before entering the peer-review process. Similarity reports are used as an editorial screening tool and are evaluated contextually; a numerical similarity percentage alone does not constitute evidence of plagiarism and is not used as an automatic criterion for acceptance or rejection.
Similarity screening is conducted using recognized plagiarism-detection software, such as iThenticate or Turnitin.
The screening may include the title, abstract, main text, tables, and other relevant textual content.
References, properly quoted material, standard methodological expressions, institutional names, commonly used terminology, and very short text matches may be excluded or interpreted separately where appropriate.
Similarity reports are reviewed by the editorial team to determine the nature, extent, source, and context of identified overlaps.
As a general editorial screening reference, an overall similarity level above 20% may trigger a more detailed editorial assessment.
Similarity from a single source should normally remain below 3%; however, this value is also interpreted in context and does not automatically constitute plagiarism.
Manuscripts with similarity levels below these reference values may still raise ethical concerns if they contain unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, substantial text recycling, or other forms of plagiarism.
Conversely, manuscripts exceeding these reference values will not be automatically rejected solely on the basis of the numerical similarity score if the identified matches arise from properly cited quotations, methodological descriptions, unavoidable technical terminology, preprints, repositories, or other legitimate sources.
Self-plagiarism or inappropriate text recycling from an author's previous publications must be avoided. Where reuse is necessary and academically justified, the original source must be appropriately cited and the extent of reuse must comply with accepted publication ethics standards.
When a similarity report raises concerns, the editorial team will assess the manuscript qualitatively, considering the location, extent, nature, and attribution of the matching text.
Depending on the findings, the editorial decision may include:
proceeding with the normal editorial and peer-review process;
requesting revision, paraphrasing, additional citation, or clarification from the authors;
returning the manuscript to the authors before peer review for substantial correction;
rejecting the manuscript where clear evidence of plagiarism, extensive unattributed copying, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate submission, or redundant publication is identified.
A manuscript will therefore not be rejected solely because it exceeds a predetermined similarity percentage. Editorial decisions will be based on the presence and seriousness of ethically inappropriate textual overlap rather than on the similarity score itself.
If plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, redundant publication, duplicate publication, or other forms of research or publication misconduct are suspected during peer review or discovered after publication, the journal will initiate an appropriate investigation in accordance with the principles and procedures of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Where misconduct is substantiated, appropriate actions may include rejection of the manuscript, correction of the published record, expression of concern, retraction, notification of relevant parties, or other measures proportionate to the nature and severity of the case.
The journal distinguishes between textual similarity and plagiarism. Similarity is a technical indicator that requires editorial interpretation, whereas plagiarism involves the inappropriate use of another person's or one's own previously published work without adequate attribution or justification.
