According to the international Committee on Publication Ethics recommendation, the following procedure is communicated to the authors in the case of suspected cases of scientific fraud.

• If the journal's reviewer is the first person who recognizes the suspect should notify the editor directly, and the editor to act according to the below flowchart
• The editor appreciates the referee and evaluates the subject, and asks the referee if he has any documents to provide. The editor collects the documents and determines the amount of overlap and copying.
• Follow the duplicate flowchart if the duplicate is from the author's previous articles. If there is no problem, he will inform the referee
• If the problem is just a brief repetition of short phrases or incorrect data references, contact the author, expressed his regret, and explain the terms of the journal. The editor then asks the author to rewrite the copied phrases or put them in quotation marks. The refereeing process then continues.
• If the editor observes clear plagiarism. (Use text or data without citation and present it as if it belonged to a plagiarist) he or she will contact the corresponding author in writing. It is better to attach the authors' signed undertaking, which indicates its originality and belonging to the authors, should also be attached to the documentary evidence of plagiarism. In this case, the journal editor asks the author for an explanation before rejecting the paper. If the explanation is acceptable, the editor notifies the author of the rejection of the paper. Explains the situation and future consequences of rejecting the article or asking the author to rewrite the paper.
• But if the corresponding author does not respond, the editor tries to contact the other authors, and if they do not respond as well, he or she will contact the author's institute and request that the message be forwarded to the senior author or research director.
• If the journal does not receive a response, it will contact the institute every 3 to 6 months. If no results are obtained, it will consider contacting other responsible institutions, such as the University Research Ethics Committee, the vice-chancellor of research, or the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology.
• Finally, the journal informs the reviewer.