Plagiarism and AI Content Policy

Protecting Original Scholarship and Promoting Transparent, Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

What Constitutes Plagiarism?

Plagiarism occurs when another person's words, ideas, arguments, theories, interpretations, data, research instruments, results, figures, tables, images or other intellectual contributions are presented without appropriate acknowledgement or in a manner that creates a misleading impression of original authorship.

Plagiarism may involve direct copying, inadequate paraphrasing, translation without attribution, reproduction of research evidence, substantial borrowing of intellectual structure or other forms of inappropriate appropriation.

The obligation to acknowledge sources applies to printed, digital, published and other legitimately accessible scholarly material.

Examples of Inappropriate Scholarly Appropriation

Authors should not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals or publishers. A manuscript submitted to TEIJPR should not ordinarily be under active consideration elsewhere.

Substantially identical research findings should not be divided, duplicated or republished in a manner that misleads readers regarding the originality or independence of the publication.

Where a manuscript develops material previously presented in a thesis, dissertation, conference paper, report or other scholarly output, the relationship should be appropriately disclosed where relevant.

Similarity Reports Require Scholarly Interpretation

Submitted manuscripts may be examined through recognised similarity-detection tools as part of editorial assessment. Similarity reports may assist in identifying matched textual material and potential originality concerns.

A numerical similarity percentage does not by itself establish that plagiarism has occurred. References, correctly quoted material, common terminology, methodological expressions, institutional names and other legitimate text may contribute to an overall similarity score.

Editorial assessment therefore considers the source, nature, context, location and significance of matched material rather than relying solely upon an overall percentage.

Authors Are Responsible for Originality

Authors bear primary responsibility for ensuring that manuscripts are original and that all sources have been cited and acknowledged appropriately before submission.

Authors should verify quotations, paraphrases, references, research instruments, tables, figures, educational materials and data sources carefully instead of relying solely upon automated similarity software.

Submission of a manuscript represents the authors' assurance that they accept responsibility for its originality, authenticity and appropriate scholarly attribution.

AI May Assist Scholarship but Cannot Replace the Scholar

TEIJPR recognises the growing use of artificial intelligence and automated technologies in academic work. Such technologies may provide assistance, but generated output should never be assumed automatically to be accurate, original, ethically appropriate or properly referenced.

Authors should exercise independent intellectual judgement and verify all AI-assisted material before incorporating it into a scholarly manuscript.

The use of artificial intelligence does not transfer responsibility for the manuscript from human authors to a software system, model developer or technology provider.

Artificial-intelligence use is unacceptable where it compromises originality, research authenticity, academic transparency, evidence integrity or human responsibility. Examples include:

Authorship Requires Human Accountability

Artificial-intelligence systems, generative language models, chatbots and automated tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to TEIJPR.

Authorship requires responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the research, approval of the submitted and published work, response to scholarly criticism and accountability for ethical and legal obligations.

Because an AI system cannot independently fulfil these responsibilities, all accountability for AI-assisted content remains with the human authors.

“The authors used [name of AI tool] for [specific purpose]. All AI-assisted material was independently reviewed, verified and revised by the authors, who accept full responsibility for the originality, accuracy and integrity of the final manuscript.”

Generative AI systems may produce inaccurate facts, nonexistent references, fabricated quotations, incorrect page information, false DOI details or misleading descriptions of genuine sources.

Authors must independently verify every reference and quotation against the original source before manuscript submission. Bibliographic information should never be accepted solely because it was generated by an AI system.

Fabricated citations, references or quotations remain the responsibility of the human authors regardless of the technological source of the error.

Authenticity of Educational Research Evidence

Artificial intelligence must not be used to manufacture research evidence that is then presented as genuinely collected educational data. Invented teachers, student teachers, learners, interviews, survey responses, classroom observations, assessment scores or experimental outcomes constitute serious research-integrity concerns.

Where AI-based analytical or computational methods form a legitimate component of the research methodology, authors should explain their use sufficiently for appropriate scholarly evaluation and should distinguish model-generated outputs from independently observed or collected evidence.

Authors remain responsible for validating calculations, classifications, coding, analysis and interpretations produced with automated assistance.

Educational research may involve personal information relating to students, teachers, teacher trainees, schools, educational institutions or vulnerable populations. Authors should exercise caution before entering confidential, unpublished, proprietary or personally identifiable information into external AI systems.

Before using an external AI service, researchers should consider relevant privacy, confidentiality, security, data-storage and retention conditions.

Use of an AI service does not remove the researcher's responsibility to protect participant privacy, unpublished research, educational records and other sensitive information.

AI as a Research Subject Is Different from AI as a Writing Tool

TEIJPR actively welcomes legitimate research on artificial intelligence in teacher education, including AI literacy for teachers, generative AI in teaching, AI-supported pedagogy, adaptive learning, intelligent tutoring, learning analytics and responsible human-AI collaboration.

Researching AI as an educational phenomenon is distinct from relying upon AI to replace scholarly authorship. A manuscript may investigate AI extensively while still being expected to demonstrate independent human reasoning, transparent methodology and responsible research practice.

Where AI platforms or models are used as part of the research design, authors should describe their role with sufficient clarity to support methodological evaluation and interpretation of results.

AI-Detection Indicators Are Not Conclusive Evidence

The journal may examine potential concerns relating to undisclosed or irresponsible AI use where there is a reasonable basis for editorial review. Assessment may consider manuscript content, references, data consistency, methodology, author explanations and other relevant evidence.

Automated tools attempting to identify AI-generated writing may produce uncertain or inaccurate results. An AI-detection score should therefore not by itself be treated as conclusive evidence that a manuscript was generated by artificial intelligence or that academic misconduct occurred.

Where significant concerns arise, authors may be asked to clarify their research or writing process and provide relevant supporting information before an editorial conclusion is reached.

Proportionate Editorial Response

Where inappropriate textual overlap, insufficient attribution, unreliable references or problematic AI-assisted content is identified before publication, the journal may request clarification, correction or revision depending upon the nature and seriousness of the concern.

A manuscript may be returned, held from further processing or rejected where significant originality or research-integrity concerns remain unresolved.

Correctable citation or attribution errors should be distinguished from substantial or deliberate misconduct, and editorial action should remain proportionate to the available evidence.

Publication does not prevent the journal from examining credible concerns regarding plagiarism, fabricated content, inaccurate references, undisclosed or irresponsible AI use or other integrity problems identified after publication.

Depending upon the nature, seriousness and effect of the issue, an appropriate response may include clarification, correction, an editorial notice, expression of concern or retraction.

Post-publication action is intended primarily to protect the accuracy, transparency and reliability of the scholarly record.

Serious or repeated breaches involving substantial plagiarism, fabricated educational data, invented participants, falsified evidence, fabricated references, deliberately misleading AI-generated content or other major violations of research integrity may result in rejection or appropriate post-publication action.

Where a matter requires institutional investigation beyond the journal's editorial role, significant concerns may be referred to an author's institution, research organisation, ethics body, funding organisation or other competent authority where appropriate.

An allegation should not automatically be treated as proof. Relevant authors should ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to provide clarification or supporting information before serious conclusions are reached.