Plagiarism

ASLTL defines plagiarism broadly, in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidance, to include: verbatim copying of text, data, or ideas from another source without appropriate citation and quotation marks; close paraphrasing that mirrors the structure and wording of a source without attribution ('patchwriting'); self-plagiarism or text recycling, where an author reuses substantial portions of their own previously published work without disclosure; and translation plagiarism, where material originally published in another language is translated and presented as original without citing the source an issue to which the journal, given its focus on translation studies, pays particular attention.

Every manuscript entering peer review is screened using similarity-detection software (e.g., iThenticate/Turnitin or an equivalent tool). As a general benchmark, an overall similarity index above approximately 15–18%, or any single source contributing more than 3%, will prompt further editorial scrutiny; these figures are indicative rather than a mechanical pass/fail threshold, since legitimate block quotations, shared methodological language, and reference lists can inflate raw similarity scores.

 Consequences

•     Before review: the manuscript is returned to the author for revision, or desk-rejected if the overlap is extensive.

•     During review: the manuscript is rejected and the author is notified of the reason.

•     After publication: if plagiarism is substantiated, the journal will follow COPE's retraction guidelines, which may result in a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction of the article (see Ethics and Misconduct Policy, Errata, and Retraction Policy).

 Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools

ASLTL recognises that generative AI and large language model (LLM) tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and similar tools) are increasingly used in academic writing and permits their limited, transparent use subject to the conditions below.

•     AI tools may be used for language polishing, grammar and style checking, translation support, formatting assistance, or generating illustrative code/data-processing scripts, provided the author takes full responsibility for the final content.

•     AI tools may not be used to generate the substantive intellectual content of a manuscript including the literature review, analysis, interpretation of findings, or conclusions in place of the author's own scholarly contribution.

•     AI tools cannot be listed as an author or co-author, as they cannot take responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, or originality of the work, nor can they give consent to publication.

•     Any use of generative AI in preparing the manuscript must be disclosed in the Acknowledgements or Methods section, naming the tool used and describing, in general terms, how it was used.

•     Authors remain fully responsible for verifying the factual accuracy of any AI-assisted content, including checking that every reference exists and is correctly cited fabricated ('hallucinated') citations are treated as a serious instance of research misconduct.

•     Reviewers and editors may use AI-detection and similarity tools as part of the editorial screening process; a positive AI-detection signal alone is not treated as definitive proof of misconduct but will prompt further editorial inquiry.

This policy will be reviewed periodically as institutional and publisher-level (COPE, international indexing databases) guidance on generative AI continues to evolve.