Turn a concern into a reviewable record
Do not begin with a headline percentage. Identify passage, edition, page or paragraph in both publications. Preserve DOI, publication date, version, author list and accessible full text. For web material, record access time and a permitted archive copy. A search snippet or coloured similarity output does not provide sufficient context.
Compare wording, structure, progression of ideas, quotations and cited sources. Ask whether the later paper names the earlier source and whether conventional methods or shared source material explain similarity. Establish chronology across preprints, theses, conference outputs and repositories. The first page discovered is not necessarily the originating work.
Write the report descriptively: “Paragraph X corresponds to these passages in Y; no attribution is visible at Z.” Avoid conclusions about intention and penalty. A citation error, unattributed recycling and appropriation of another person's idea may require different assessment.
Classify the material through scholarly reading
Unsignalled verbatim reuse differs from a correctly quoted passage with an inaccurate page number. For paraphrases, examine sentence structure, distinctive idea sequence and source attribution. Common knowledge and necessary technical phrases have limited originality. A long highlighted passage can be legitimate; a short distinctive phrase can be material.
Look beyond prose. Unattributed data, figures or ideas may affect findings even if a textual correction is easy. Conversely, a bounded error in background does not automatically invalidate every result. Describe scale and function instead of adding match lengths.
Similarity tools assist triage but do not decide. Record corpus limits, filters and candidate-source errors. Read the underlying documents. Keep inaccessible sources and conflicting dates visibly unresolved rather than filling gaps through assumption.
Journals and institutions protect different things
The journal maintains the publication record. It screens the report, communicates with authors, issues notices and preserves links between versions. An institution may hold research files, employ relevant people and operate a formal investigation process. It examines conduct under its rules. Necessary information can be shared with confidentiality and procedural fairness.
Authors receive specific concerns and a genuine opportunity to respond. The corresponding author coordinates but does not replace individual involvement. Reporters should be protected from retaliation and unnecessary identification; anonymous submissions are assessed through evidence rather than status.
Conflicted editors or officers recuse themselves. Where authors belong to several institutions, responsible contacts should agree leadership and information flow. Unclear jurisdiction must not become a reason for indefinite silence.
Match the public action to reliability
A correction is suitable when a limited defect can be repaired transparently and the article remains reliable. The notice identifies what changed and why, while publication history remains visible. Replacing a PDF without notice is not adequate correction.
An expression of concern can warn readers while a serious, unresolved investigation continues. It is provisional rather than punitive and should be updated. Retraction signals that findings or the integrity of the paper cannot be relied upon. The article remains identifiable and marked rather than disappearing from the scholarly record.
Use factual language and avoid speculation. Even where one author's contribution is implicated, editors consider shared accountability and overall reliability. Legal correspondence needs competent handling but should not produce an opaque, inaccurate record.
Make the outcome durable and intelligible
A notice identifies the article, passages, decision and issuing editor, and links in both directions. The title and metadata expose correction or retraction status. Confirmed facts are separated from unresolved questions; personal data are limited to what the public record needs.
Check downstream databases and repository records. Notify authors of materially dependent reviews or guidance where appropriate. A citation to a retracted item is not automatically improper, but future writers should understand its status and reason.
The text-recycling guide addresses an author's own prior prose. The image review matrix addresses visual evidence. More workflows sit in the publication ethics hub. The sole foundation route is the guide to evidence review.
Record reasoned closure too. The journal should note which versions and policies were reviewed, why no public action is required and whether internal metadata still need correction. Give the reporter a factual response within confidentiality limits. A closed matter can be reopened if specific new evidence emerges.