Section I: Scope and Jurisdiction

​

These provisions apply to all submissions undergoing review or published within the NeurodivURGENT Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Practice. The journal's parent entity, Practegy Educational Services, Inc., vests enforcement authority in the Editorial Board.

​

Section II: Initial Assessment and Flagging

​

• Screening Mechanisms: All manuscripts undergo automated and manual screening for text duplication and AI-generated content markers upon submission.

• Recognition of Tool Limitations: The Editorial Board explicitly recognizes that algorithmic detection software and AI screening tools are imperfect, prone to false positives, and unable to definitively prove intent or human authorship on their own.

• Evidentiary Threshold: A formal inquiry begins if screening tools or peer reviewers identify anomalous data matrices, verbatim text blocks, or algorithmic writing signatures.

• Presumption of Integrity: A formal inquiry is an administrative mechanism to resolve data and textual anomalies; it is strictly exploratory and does not in itself signify a presumption of dishonesty, bad faith, or academic misconduct by the author.

• Recusal Protocol: Any board member with a conflict of interest regarding the author or institution must recuse themselves immediately.

​

Section III: Notice of Inquiry and Author Response

​

• Written Notification: The Editor-in-Chief will issue a formal Notice of Inquiry via email within seven business days of a confirmed flag.

• Specification of Concern: The notice will explicitly detail the flagged sections, including comparative plagiarism texts or specific AI-generation markers.

• Right to Respond: The author has exactly 30 calendar days from the date of notification to submit a written explanation, along with original data logs, drafts, or research notes verifying human authorship.

 

Section IV: Ad Hoc Committee Investigation

 

• Panel Formation: If the author's response does not fully resolve the issue, the Editor-in-Chief will convene a three-person ad hoc Intellectual Integrity Panel.

• Technical Evaluation: The panel will independently review the manuscript, the flagged metrics, and the author's defense dossier.

• Presumption Window: The manuscript remains under a confidential hold; no external parties will be notified during this active evaluation phase.

​

Section V: Disciplinary Actions and Outcomes

​

If a majority of the panel finds a violation of the Anti-Plagiarism or AI Prohibition clauses, the journal will execute actions corresponding to the severity of the infraction:

• Violation Category:

  • Minor Infraction

    • Definition: Isolated paraphrasing errors or accidental self-plagiarism.

      • Action: Mandated text revision and formal correction.

  • Severe Misconduct

    • Definition: Fabricated matrices, verbatim plagiarism, or AI-generated substantive content. Immediate manuscript rejection and a multi-year submission ban.

 

Section VI: Appeals Process

​

• Filing Window: Authors may appeal a misconduct finding within 14 calendar days of receiving the final decision.

• Grounds for Appeal: Appeals are strictly limited to procedural errors or the introduction of new, verifiable historical draft evidence.

• Final Ruling: The final decision rests with an independent Intermediary appointed by Practegy Educational Services, Inc.