Scientific Works «Adult Education: Theory, Experience, Prospects» considers for publication only original scholarly works that meet the principles of academic integrity, proper research practice, and editorial ethics.

The journal’s editorial office proceeds from the understanding that plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, unacknowledged text borrowing, improper citation, fabrication of sources, and other forms of dishonest use of other people’s or previously published materials are unacceptable and may lead to rejection of the manuscript or post-publication action.

The journal’s policy on plagiarism detection and other forms of improper textual or substantive borrowing is implemented with due regard to the recommendations of COPE, the principles of transparent editorial practice, and the legislation of Ukraine in the field of academic integrity.

1. General Principles

1.1. All manuscripts submitted to the journal must undergo mandatory screening for text similarity, borrowings, signs of improper citation, and other possible breaches of academic integrity.

1.2. For technical screening, the editorial office uses the StrikePlagiarism system as a supporting tool to identify:

• text similarities;
• possible unreferenced borrowings;
• possible duplication of already published texts;
• some signs of modified or artificially paraphrased text;
• supporting indicators of possible AI-generated content.

1.3. Any results produced by software are supporting, not final. The percentage of text similarity, technical similarity scores, or an indicator of possible AI-generated text cannot by itself be treated as automatic proof of misconduct.

1.4. The final decision on whether there is a breach of academic integrity is made by an authorised and competent person / the editorial office on the basis of expert, contextual, and content-based analysis of the manuscript, the screening report, the nature of the borrowings, the citation practice, and, where needed, the explanations provided by the author(s).

2. What the Journal Treats as Misconduct

When assessing possible breaches of academic integrity, the editorial office follows the current legislation of Ukraine, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Academic Integrity”, Article 42 “Academic Integrity” of the Law of Ukraine “On Education”, and the journal’s internal editorial policies. Accordingly, the editorial office treats as serious not only direct unreferenced borrowing, but also other forms of dishonest academic practice that violate the principles of proper scholarly communication, reliability of research results, and respect for copyright.

The breaches considered under this Policy include, but are not limited to:

• plagiarism - the use of other people’s texts, ideas, data, tables, images, results, or other materials without proper reference to the source;
• self-plagiarism / text recycling - repeated use by an author of substantial parts of their own previously published texts without proper reference, explanation, or editorial approval;
• duplicate / multiple submission - submission to the journal of a manuscript that has already been published, is under consideration elsewhere, or substantially overlaps with another publication;
• improper paraphrasing - formal change of words or sentence structure without real authorial processing of the content and without proper reference;
• fabrication or falsification of bibliographic references - giving non-existent, unreliable, unchecked, or knowingly distorted sources;
• improper use of AI tools - use of artificial intelligence tools in a way that leads to hidden borrowing, invented sources, false citations, distorted meaning, or another breach of academic integrity.

This list is not exhaustive. In each individual case, the editorial office assesses the situation in view of the content of the manuscript, the nature of the borrowings, the explanations of the author(s), the journal’s editorial policies, and the principles of academic integrity.

3. What Is Not Automatically Treated as Misconduct

The editorial office recognises that some text similarities may be legitimate and do not automatically mean plagiarism. These may include:

• the name of an institution;
• standard scholarly wording;
• commonly used terms;
• correctly presented quotations;
• titles of legal acts, documents, and methods;
• bibliographic descriptions;
• passages with limited possibilities for paraphrasing;
• properly referenced earlier works by the author.

For this reason, the editorial office assesses not only the amount of similarity, but above all its meaning, volume, nature, place in the text, and whether proper scholarly reference is given.

4. Stages of Screening

4.1. Screening for text similarity and other possible signs of academic misconduct is normally carried out before the manuscript is sent for peer review.

4.2. If needed, additional screening may be carried out:

• during peer review;
• after the manuscript has been revised by the author(s);
• before final acceptance for publication;
• after publication, if the editorial office receives a justified statement or complaint.

4.3. Reviewers and editors may also identify signs of possible plagiarism, self-plagiarism, improper citation, or other breaches and inform the editorial office for additional consideration.

5. Assessment of Screening Results

5.1. The editorial office does not follow a purely mechanical approach in which a decision is made only on the basis of the total percentage of similarity.

5.2. Technical scores, similarity indicators, and other software parameters may be used as internal reference points for initial analysis, but the final conclusion is always based on expert assessment.

5.3. During the analysis, the editorial office considers:

• the sources of the detected similarities;
• the amount and nature of the similarities;
• whether references are present or absent;
• the share of similarities in the key substantive parts of the article;
• possible overlap with the author’s previous works;
• risks of improper use of AI;
• the explanations of the author(s), if provided.

6. Editorial Action in the Case of Problematic Borrowing

6.1. If the manuscript contains minor or technically correctable problems in the presentation of borrowing, citation, or references, the editorial office may ask the author(s) to:

• revise the text;
• format quotations properly;
• add or clarify bibliographic references;
• reduce excessive text similarities;
• clearly separate the author’s new contribution from previously published material.

6.2. If the detected similarities are substantial and show improper borrowing, significant duplication, hidden self-plagiarism, fabricated sources, or other serious breaches, the editorial office may:

• reject the manuscript without further review;
• suspend the editorial process until explanations are received;
• ask the author(s) for a written explanation;
• begin an additional ethics review.

6.3. If misconduct is found after publication, the editorial office acts in line with the Post-Publication Changes Policy and may issue a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, retraction, or take other appropriate measures.

7. Use of Indicators of AI-Generated Content

7.1. The journal may use technical indicators showing the probability of AI-generated or AI-modified text only as a supporting analytical signal.

7.2. Such indicators are not independent proof of misconduct and cannot be the only reason for rejection of a manuscript.

7.3. If the editorial office has justified concerns about improper use of AI tools, it considers this issue together with other factors: the quality of the text, the reliability of sources, the correctness of citation, the explanations of the author(s), and the provisions of the AI Policy.

8. Confidentiality of Screening Reports

8.1. Similarity reports, technical coefficients, analytical conclusions, and other materials related to the detection of possible plagiarism are internal working documents of the editorial office.

8.2. The journal may indicate that a manuscript or published article has been screened using StrikePlagiarism, but full similarity reports are not made public, are not published together with the article, and are not distributed in open access, except where this is required by an official ethics procedure or by law.

9. Responsibilities of Authors

9.1. By submitting a manuscript to the journal, the author(s):

• guarantee the originality of the submitted work;
• properly present all borrowings, quotations, and references;
• disclose possible use of previously published material;
• confirm that the same or a substantially similar manuscript has not been submitted to another journal;
• comply with the Publication Ethics Policy and the AI Policy.

9.2. If requested by the editorial office, the author(s) must provide explanations concerning detected similarities, the origin of specific text passages, or the use of their previous publications.

10. Final Provisions

10.1. This Policy is applied together with other editorial policies of the journal.

10.2. By submitting a manuscript to the journal, the author(s) agree to this Policy.

10.3. If possible signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other breaches of academic integrity become the subject of a report or complaint, the editorial office reviews such cases in accordance with the Policy for the Handling of Complaints on Breaches of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics.