Ethical Principles of Publication

Ethical Charter for Authors

Originality

The article submitted by the author to the Journal of Philosophy must be new and original. An author may not submit an article, in whole or in part, that is currently under review elsewhere to the journal, nor may they submit an article, in whole or in part, that is under review or evaluation by this journal to another publication.

The submitted article, whether in whole or in part and in any language (Persian or otherwise), must not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere.

Authors must explicitly state their own original work and ideas, even when they are not directly quoted or paraphrased in the article. If the author uses verbatim sentences or phrases from other scholarly works, this material must be placed within "quotation marks."

The article must specify the origin and originality of each dataset used. If proprietary datasets have been used elsewhere by this author or another, the article must cite these other works, whether published or unpublished.

Authors should not submit an article that was previously submitted to this journal, evaluated, and subsequently rejected by the editor. If the initial version was rejected and the author wishes to submit a revised version for evaluation, the justification for resubmission must be clearly stated by the author for the editor's consideration. Resubmission is only permitted under special circumstances.

Scientific Misconduct (Plagiarism)

Upon submission of an article to the Journal of Philosophy system, an email will be sent to all co-authors. It is understood that the inclusion of authors' names signifies their substantial contribution to the drafting of the article. If an individual's name has been listed without their involvement in the work, they must immediately report this via the received email. All authors are responsible for the originality of the work. The journal reserves the right to evaluate cases of scientific misconduct. Scientific misconduct takes various forms, including:

a. Submitting another person's article under one's own name. b. Listing the names of authors or researchers who did not participate in the article. c. Copying or reproducing significant portions of another article (even if the copied article is by one of the authors of the new article). d. Presenting the results of others' research as one's own. e. Repeated publication of the same article by a single author in multiple journals (self-plagiarism). f. Stating incorrect results contrary to scientific findings or falsifying research results. g. Using invalid data or manipulating research data.

Cases of scientific misconduct will be investigated by the journal authorities, and legal action will be taken without tolerance, based on the severity of the misconduct, to protect the credibility and efforts of other researchers, as follows:

1. The article will be rejected, and if already published, it will be removed from the journal's website.
2. The names of all authors will be placed on the Journal of Philosophy's blacklist.
3. Legal action will be pursued through competent judicial authorities.
4. A formal letter detailing the case of scientific misconduct will be shared with other relevant domestic and international universities and journals.
5. A formal letter will be sent to the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology, the Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC), universities, institutes, journals, and any other entity where the authors may have used the credit for this publication.

Statement on Plagiarism Prevention and Combat

The publisher of the Journal of Philosophy accepts all COPE regulations concerning the protection of authors' rights and research ethics. In the event of any act of plagiarism, all convincing evidence will be reviewed, and we will act in accordance with the workflows and procedures specified by COPE.

The editorial board members and reviewers of the journal will take the necessary steps to evaluate submitted articles for their originality, the reliability of the information provided, and the correct use of sources and references. The journal's editorial team has established the following policies:

• Researchers and authors must ensure that they submit only original and novel research works for publication. If they have used the work or statements of others, they must provide appropriate attribution and citation. Plagiarism in any form—including extensive quotations; paraphrasing or restating significant parts of others' work without citing the source; presenting others' work as one's own; or claiming the results of research conducted by others as one's own—is considered unethical research misconduct and is unacceptable. Articles that are merely a compilation of previously published works by other authors (without creative interpretation or the representation of the author's own thoughts and ideas) will not be accepted for publication.
• Submitted articles will be checked using plagiarism detection software such as IranDoc, Samim-Noor, and iThenticate. If plagiarism is detected in the Persian text or the English abstract, the journal office will immediately reject the manuscript and blacklist the authors for a period of five years. Therefore, all authors are advised to check the full text of their manuscript using plagiarism detection software before submission.
• If plagiarism is identified in an article submitted for publication, the government determines the specific actions (legal penalties); however, the journal reserves the right to retract the article.

Researchers and authors must ensure that the submitted version:

• Is an original, novel, and innovative work;
• Is free of plagiarism;
• Has not been previously published in any language;
• Properly cites sentences or information from other articles within the text and references;
• Adheres to copyright laws. Copyright-protected materials (e.g., tables, figures, graphs, photographs, or long quotations) may only be reused with the permission of the copyright holder.

The journal is responsible for assisting the scientific community in upholding publication ethics, particularly by exposing cases of plagiarism and discrediting works containing research misconduct. Reviewers and editorial board members have the right to check submitted articles for plagiarism.

The submitted article must have a similarity score of less than 10%. The similarity from any single identified source should also be a maximum of 1%. In general, a textual similarity of more than 10% is unacceptable.

Conflict of Interest

The corresponding author must disclose the sources of financial support for the project in the manuscript text before proceeding with the submission. Any such interests disclosed must be published along with the article. If there is any doubt about whether a situation constitutes a conflict, it must be clarified and disclosed. Any matter concerning a conflict of interest should be raised with the publications office or the editor.

When submitting the article to the journal, the corresponding author has the opportunity to suggest potential reviewers. Authors must avoid any potential or apparent conflicts of interest in the selection of editors and reviewers. This type of conflict of interest applies not only to the corresponding author but also to the co-authors of the article. The corresponding author must download and complete the Conflict of Interest Form.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest include:

• One of the authors is at the same institution or organization as the named editor or reviewer.
• One of the authors was a member of the editor's or reviewer's thesis committee, or vice versa.
• One of the authors and the editor or reviewer are currently co-authors on another article or have been co-authors on an article within the past two years.
• Authors should not suggest individuals they know have read a previous version of the article and provided comments, as such knowledge automatically violates the double-blind peer review process.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, whereby authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and vice versa. Authors must respect the confidentiality of the review process and not reveal their identity to the reviewers, nor should reviewers reveal their identity to the authors. For example, the manuscript should not contain any self-identifying information that would allow a reviewer to identify the author.

Authors should not post their submitted manuscript (including articles and initial drafts) on websites, as authors can be easily identified by reviewers on such platforms.

Authors should not suggest as editors or reviewers individuals they know have previously read the article or an earlier version of it and provided comments, as this knowledge automatically violates the double-blind peer review process.

Accuracy

Authors are ultimately responsible for the entire content of the article submitted to the journal. Authors are committed to providing an accurate account of the research conducted and an objective discussion of its significance.

Authors must report their findings completely and must not omit data relevant to the text or the research questions. Results must be reported regardless of whether they support or contradict the expected outcomes. Authors must exercise particular care in presenting the properties or characteristics relevant to their research or its findings and interpretations. The fundamental assumptions, theories, methods, indicators, and research designs related to the findings and their application must be clearly stated.

The article should contain sufficient detail and references to allow other researchers to access the same dataset to replicate the research.

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own work, they are obligated to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate in retracting or correcting the article. If the author or publisher is informed by a third party that a published work contains a serious and significant error, the author is obligated to promptly act to retract or correct the article or to provide evidence to the editor supporting the validity of the original article.

Co-authorship

All authors listed in the article must have made a significant contribution to the research and be accountable for the results. The credit for authorship should be shared proportionally to the contributions made to different parts of the work. Authors must assume responsibility and credit for the work, meaning authorship credit should be given only for work that has been substantially performed or in which they have provided significant assistance. Authors should typically list the student as the primary co-author in multi-authored articles that are largely based on the student's thesis or dissertation.

The corresponding author who submits the article to the journal must send a copy or draft of the article to all co-authors and obtain their consent for submission and publication.

Human Rights

Authors are responsible for protecting the privacy, human dignity, well-being, and freedom of human research participants. Articles involving human subjects (field studies, simulations, interviews) must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the author's university's human rights ethics code. In the Journal of Philosophy, all participants in studies involving human subjects have the right to privacy, and researchers must not violate this right without informed consent. Identifying information of participants, such as names, etc., must not be published in written form, photographs, or genealogies unless this information is essential for scientific purposes and the participants (or their parents/guardians) have provided written informed consent for publication. Participant consent forms must be documented and archived in accordance with national regulations or local laws, either at the journal office, the researcher's workplace, or both.

Timeliness and Promptness

Authors must act promptly and appropriately in revising and making corrections to their article. If an author cannot meet the specified deadline (a maximum of one month), they should contact the editor as soon as possible to request an extension or to withdraw from the review process.

Ethical Charter for Editors

Independence

Editors of the journal must maintain their editorial independence and work to ensure that authors have freedom of expression. The responsibility for accepting or rejecting articles lies with the editors. In the normal course of this duty, this requires the opinion and recommendation of reviewers; however, articles that the editors deem entirely unsuitable may be rejected without peer review.

Impartiality

Editors must exercise the authority of their position confidentially, impartially, and constructively. Editors are responsible for judging articles solely on their scientific merits. Editors must operate without personal or ideological bias or favoritism.

Conflict of Interest

Editors must avoid any action that creates or appears to create a conflict of interest or an unreasonable appearance of one. For example:

To avoid potential conflicts of interest, an editor should not publish material that has not been clearly identified, peer-reviewed, or undergone a single-blind review. The responsibility for editing any article written by the editor and submitted to the journal office must be delegated by the editor to another qualified person, such as the journal's previous editor or a member of the editorial board and advisors. Applying editorial or stylistic considerations to the article by the author-editor is never acceptable under any circumstances.

Editors must refrain from reviewing an article that creates a real or potential conflict of interest for them, arising from competitive, collaborative, financial, and other relationships or connections with any author, company, or institution associated with the article. Examples of links indicating editor-author conflicts of interest include:

1. The editor and author are employed by the same institution.
2. The editor was a member of the author's thesis committee, or vice versa.
3. The author and editor are currently co-authors on another article or have been co-authors on an article within the past two years.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, whereby authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and vice versa. Where it appears that journal articles have not undergone double-blind peer review, the review standard must be clearly stated.

Confidentiality

Editors (and their editorial staff) must not disclose information about an article to anyone other than the reviewers and authors. Administrative procedures must be established to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Editors are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind peer review process and not disclose information that could reveal the identity of authors to reviewers or vice versa. The anonymity of reviewers may only be breached if editors obtain permission from the reviewers to reveal their identity.

Editors must ensure that their editorial board members comply with this practice. Unpublished portions of a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's personal research without the written consent of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained through the review of manuscripts must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Quality of Review

Typically, two reviewers are invited to provide an opinion on an article. The editor should routinely review and assess all reviews for quality. In rare cases, an editor may edit a reviewed article before sending it to the author (e.g., to remove a phrase that reveals the reviewer's identity) or may not send a reviewed article to the author if it is not constructive or appropriate. Review quality ratings and other performance metrics should be periodically evaluated by the editor to ensure the journal's optimal performance. These ratings should also aid in decisions regarding the reappointment of the review board and ongoing review requests. Individual reviewer performance data should be accessible to editors and kept confidential.

Timeliness

Editors must act promptly to ensure the timely review of all articles and to respond quickly to authors' inquiries about the status of their review. They must proceed with the initial review and selection of reviewers within the specified timeframe (a maximum of one week after receiving the article).

Quality of Decision

Editors are responsible for explaining the editorial board's decisions to authors regarding their article. Editors must write high-quality letters that synthesize the reviewers' recommendations and provide additional suggestions for the author. Editors should not communicate the decision in a letter without an explanation, simply attaching a set of reviewer recommendations.

Accuracy

When an editor receives convincing evidence from a reviewer that a concept or conclusion in an unpublished article is incorrect, they must promptly inform the author. If similar evidence is presented regarding a published article, the editor must act to promptly publish a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other relevant notice as appropriate.

Authority

The final authority and responsibility for the journal must rest with the editor. The editor must respect the journal's constituencies (readers, authors, reviewers, associate editors, editorial staff, and publisher) and strive to ensure the integrity of the journal's content and its continuous quality improvement. The editor should select the editorial group, including the editorial review board; define the rights and responsibilities of these individuals; and regularly evaluate their performance.

Performance

The editor should establish performance indicators for the journal. The journal should publish annual audits on acceptance rates, publication intervals, the percentage of articles sent for external review, and other performance data. Performance indicators should be used to evaluate developments in article review and publication processes and thereby improve the journal's performance.

Ethical Charter for Reviewers

Reciprocity

Reviewing is a professional activity for journals that provides value to the entire profession and should be encouraged. It is generally expected that researchers who submit their articles to a journal will, in turn, accept invitations to review articles for that journal.

Right to Decline

It is necessary and acceptable to decline a request to review an article based on time or other constraints. For example, a reviewer who feels they lack sufficient expertise to judge a research article should decline to review it. Reviewers should also decline to review an article if a potential conflict of interest exists. If asked to review an article they have previously reviewed, they should inform the editor of the details of the initial review, unless it is clear that a re-review is being requested.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal has a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers must decline to review articles for which they have previously provided written comments on an initial version to the author. If a reviewer knows the identity of the author or a co-author, they are naturally obligated to decline the review. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, saying, or doing anything that could reveal their identity to the author.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should generally decline to review articles that, in their view, present a conflict of interest, whether personal, financial, institutional, or otherwise, or any other relationship or connection with companies, institutions, or individuals associated with the articles. Reviewers who may have a conflict of interest regarding a specific article must disclose it to the editor so that the editor can determine the appropriate level of their involvement. An example is a situation where the reviewer has a similar article under review at the same or another journal or a similar research project in progress. Note that under the double-blind process, since reviewers do not know the authors' identities, it is unlikely they will be aware of author-related conflicts; therefore, they are not restricted by them. If reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they must inform the journal editor.

Impartiality

Reviewers must evaluate articles objectively, impartially, and professionally. Reviewers must avoid personal bias in their recommendations and judgments.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers must not discuss the article with anyone other than the journal editor and must not share information from the article with anyone without permission. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they must inform the editor confidentially and should not discuss their concerns with other parties until the journal makes an official announcement.

Accuracy

In evaluating an article and making recommendations to the author(s), reviewers must always remember that their evaluation influences scientific judgment. Reviewers must be honest with the author about their concerns regarding the article. Reviewers must adequately explain and support their scientific judgment; that is, they must provide sufficient detail and justification for their recommendations to the author for the editor's benefit. Reviewers should not be duplicitous; for example, being overly friendly in their comments to the author while being highly negative in their private notes to the editor.

Timeliness

Reviewers must act promptly in their evaluations. If a reviewer cannot meet the specified deadline (a maximum of one month), they should contact the editor as soon as possible to request an extension or for a new reviewer to be selected.

Copyright and Open Access Statement

Copyright and Publishing License

All articles accepted in the Journal of Philosophy are published under a Creative Commons license. Therefore, authors and researchers, as the copyright owners, license the publication of the article under the terms of open access.

Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC)

In effect, the copyright of articles published in the Journal of Philosophy under the CC BY-NC license belongs to the author, who is the copyright owner. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) license permits copying, printing, using, downloading, distributing, sharing, and broadcasting the article in any network or medium, provided that the author's moral rights are preserved, the original work is properly cited, the source is correctly referenced, and it is not used for commercial purposes.

Open Access Statement

The University of Tehran, as the publisher of the Journal of Philosophy, fully accepts and adheres to the Budapest Open Access Initiative. This journal is a fully open-access periodical. This means that all articles are immediately made available online to all users upon acceptance (as an Early Access article) and after publication (as free open access). The use, distribution, and sharing of the article in any medium, network, or website is permitted, provided that the author and journal are properly cited.

The benefeis of Open Access for authors include:

• Retention of copyright by the article's authors.
• Free and open access for all readers and users worldwide.
• Increased accessibility, visibility, discoverability, and readership of the articles.
• Increased citation of the articles.
• No geographical restrictions on access.
• Rapid and timely publication.

In case any disputes may occur, we will follow the instructions given by COPE (COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS ((http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).