Believers Journal of Health Sciences (BJHS) is committed to protecting academic integrity and the originality of published research. The journal does not accept plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate submission, redundant publication, unattributed translation, or any other improper use of another person's work, ideas, data, images, or intellectual contributions. All submitted manuscripts must appropriately acknowledge relevant sources and comply with accepted standards of responsible scholarly publishing.
Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, methods, data, results, images, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment. Practices that may constitute plagiarism or inappropriate overlap include:
Submitted manuscripts may be screened using appropriate similarity detection tools as part of the journal's editorial assessment. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial team to identify possible plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate text recycling, or other forms of unattributed overlap. A similarity percentage alone does not determine whether a manuscript will be accepted or rejected. Editors consider the context and extent of matched material, the accuracy of attribution, and the nature of the source. Properly attributed quotations, standard terminology, appropriately referenced methodological descriptions, and other legitimate textual similarities are assessed in context.
Authors may build upon their previously published work when the earlier source is appropriately acknowledged and the submitted manuscript provides a substantive new scholarly contribution. Undisclosed reuse of previously published data, results, analyses, or conclusions may constitute inappropriate redundant publication. The same or substantially similar manuscript must not be submitted simultaneously to multiple journals. Authors should disclose relevant overlap with conference abstracts, preprints, theses, dissertations, reports, or other prior forms of dissemination where such disclosure is necessary for transparent editorial assessment.
Generative artificial intelligence tools must not be used to fabricate, falsify, plagiarize, or conceal improperly reused material. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution, and integrity of all content submitted to BJHS, including material developed with AI-assisted tools. References, quotations, data, and factual statements generated or processed with technological assistance must be independently checked by the authors. Fabricated citations, invented sources, manipulated data, or misleading attribution may constitute serious publication-ethics concerns.
When limited or potentially inappropriate textual overlap is identified before publication, authors may be asked to revise the manuscript, improve attribution, or provide clarification. Serious plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate submission, data fabrication, or other substantial integrity concerns may result in rejection. Additional editorial action may be considered where warranted by the nature and evidence of the concern.
If plagiarism, redundant publication, or another significant integrity concern is substantiated after publication, BJHS may issue an appropriate post-publication notice, such as a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter. The relevant article record and associated metadata will be updated where necessary to clearly communicate the publication status.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted work is appropriately original, all relevant sources are accurately cited, direct quotations are clearly identified, and necessary permissions have been obtained for copyrighted material where applicable. Authors should also disclose relevant prior dissemination or overlap that could affect editorial assessment. If a manuscript is rejected or a post-publication action is taken because of an originality or overlap concern, the authors may submit a written appeal explaining the factual or procedural basis for reconsideration. Where appropriate, the appeal will be reviewed by an editor who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision.