Plagiarism is considered a cardinal sin among many academics but I agree that sometimes this may be unintentional and due to a lack of experience-so should they have a second chance? See the other discussion thread on this subject in RG.

Part of the responsibility lies with the past instructors and advisors of these inexperienced researchers. It is one of the most important rules that you don't use the same words as are found in another paper, without quotation marks and attribution.

It is not unusual that my literature reviews cover the same ground in subsequent papers. But I always write these sections with new wording, not copying and pasting. Future researchers need to learn this from their teachers and advisors during their educational years.

Editors of legitimate journals often feel that they need to be strict, because they already get so many more submissions than they can possibly print.

I've seen cases where the similarity test is failed due to the high number of direct quotations used and authors paraphrasing their own prior work, as well. In cases like these, I would recommend taking another look (beyond the numbers alone) to see why the similarity index is high before rejecting the paper.

If you read the terms and conditions of peer reviewed journals, you will notice that only in case of major/ minor corrections, you can get a second chance to revise and resubmit the paper. A high similarity index causes a direct rejection as the editor of journal expect that you have paraphrased and proofreaded the paper before submitting it to the journal. It is not a journal mistake, but the author mistake since you have to read all the conditions and information provided by the journal before publishing in it.

the pligarism programmes are unfair

for example i thencicate

blindly it gives pligarism for each word and fixed facts like HCV is a hepatotropic virus and so on

it should judge the novalety of the idea