In order to ensure the research integrity of our publications, the journal of Philosophy of Religion Research works closely with authors and editors to promote adherence to the core principles of publication ethics as articulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We encourage further exploration of COPE’s resources on their website.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are expected to conform to the standards of ethical behavior promulgated by COPE. For the benefit of our authors, editors, and reviewers, we have listed below some of the most important responsibilities concerning the authors, editors, and reviewers according to COPE’s guidelines:
-The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
-Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
-Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
-Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
-Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
-The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
-Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
-Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish
-Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process
-Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting
-Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct
-Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct
-Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals
-Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them
-Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial
conflicts of interest
1.Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (eg, reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing.
2.Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.
3.Bias and competing interests: It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice. While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded. Similarly, notify the journal as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process. In the case of double blind review, if you suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential competing or conflict of interest.
4.Suspicion of ethics violations: If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.
5.Transferability of peer review: Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.