Screening
Submissions may be screened before peer review for format, scope, authorship and, where appropriate, similarity/originality. No universal fixed “acceptable similarity percentage” is used; references, method language, legal quotations and necessary terminology are interpreted in context.
Types of misconduct
- Presenting another person’s text, ideas, images or data as one’s own without proper attribution.
- Excessive copying or misrepresentation of original contribution even where a source is cited.
- Undisclosed recycling of one’s own prior text/publication or redundant publication.
- Fabrication or falsification of data, documents, images, artwork/provenance or research processes.
- Improper authorship, concealed authorship, false contribution claims or manipulation of peer review.
- Misleading omission of source, funding, conflict-of-interest, permission or ethics-approval information.
Investigation process
Where concern arises, processing may be paused and the author/participant asked for an explanation and supporting documents. Review is conducted as confidentially and independently as possible. Unfounded allegations are closed; remediable errors may lead to revision; serious or intentional misconduct may lead to rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, retraction and, where appropriate, notification of the relevant institution.
Record and appeal
The decision and its essential rationale are retained in the editorial record. The affected person may request reconsideration under the Complaints and Appeals Policy on the basis of new evidence or procedural error.
This text is an institutional operating policy of STA Congress. Applicable law, competent-authority decisions and stricter event-specific rules prevail where relevant. Policies must remain consistent with actual workflows and technical systems.