All manuscripts submitted to Trends in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (TPB) are screened using Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate (iParadigms), the same technology behind Turnitin. A searchable list of participating journals is available at ithenticate.com.

TPB's publication ethics policy is based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the joint COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication or falsification, and improper credit of authorship are all considered research misconduct under these principles.

How Similarity Reports Are Used

Every new TPB submission is screened automatically through Similarity Check as part of the editorial workflow. Editorial Board members can also run a report manually at any stage of review, or after publication. The report shows the percentage of text that overlaps with previously published sources. Figures and equations cannot currently be checked.

A high similarity score is not proof of plagiarism, and a low score is not proof of originality. A score of 30% could mean 30% overlap with a single source, or it could mean 1% overlap with 30 different sources. Properly cited quotations, standard terminology and methods common in the field, and the author's own previously published and correctly cited work can all add to this score. It takes an editor familiar with the subject to judge whether a similarity report is actually a concern.

Self-Plagiarism and Duplicate Submission

Publishing one's own previously published work again without proper citation or permission is a form of misconduct. It presents old material as new, misleads reviewers and readers about the originality of the submission, and inflates the author's publication record. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is also not allowed.

Editorial Response and Sanctions

TPB's response to a confirmed case depends on how serious it is, whether it appears intentional, and when it was discovered. Following COPE's guidance, the response is proportionate rather than automatic:

Stage Detected	Editorial Action
Before peer review	The manuscript is returned to the author with an explanation. Resubmission is allowed after correction, where appropriate.
During peer review	The manuscript is rejected, and the corresponding author is notified of the reason. If the case appears serious or intentional, the author's institution is also informed.
After publication (minor)	A Correction or Corrigendum is published and linked to the original article.
After publication (major)	The article is formally retracted, following the procedure below.

For serious or repeated cases, the Editor-in-Chief, together with the Editorial Board, may place additional restrictions on future submissions from the author. This is decided case by case, and the author is given a chance to respond before a final decision is made, following COPE's guidance on handling suspected plagiarism and redundant publication.

Retraction Procedure

When misconduct is confirmed in a published article, TPB follows COPE's Retraction Guidelines:

• A retraction notice is published, signed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, explaining the reason for the retraction.
• The original article is watermarked "RETRACTED" on every page and stays available online. Retraction does not mean the article is removed.
• The retraction notice and the original article are linked to each other and clearly marked in the table of contents.
• The retraction is reported to Crossref through Crossmark, and reflected in the indexing databases where the article appears, including Scopus and Web of Science.
• Where relevant, the author's institution and funding body are also notified.