Publication Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND EDITORIAL POLICIES

1. Publication of Ethics Statements

The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct throughout the publication process. The journal publishes original, scientifically rigorous, and ethically conducted research in neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, consciousness studies, and related interdisciplinary fields.

JNphi recognizes that scientific publishing depends upon honesty, accountability, transparency, and respect for the scientific record. Editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher share responsibility for safeguarding the quality and credibility of the scholarly literature. Every participant in the editorial process is therefore expected to comply with internationally accepted ethical standards.

The journal adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed jointly by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

JNphi follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and uses COPE Flowcharts when investigating suspected ethical misconduct. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts, without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or any other personal characteristic.

The journal is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. Allegations of research misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, image manipulation, citation manipulation, or any other unethical behavior will be investigated carefully and confidentially in accordance with internationally accepted publishing standards.

JNphi operates a double-blind peer-review system in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scientific merit and reviewers' recommendations.

The journal expects all published research involving human participants, animals, identifiable personal information, or biological materials to comply with applicable international ethical standards and to have received approval from the appropriate institutional ethics committee where required.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical conduct of their work. Submission of a manuscript implies that all authors have approved the submitted version, agree with its content, and accept responsibility for the integrity of the research.

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts or take appropriate post-publication action whenever ethical concerns arise before or after publication.

 

2. Scope of Ethical Responsibility

Maintaining the integrity of scientific publication is a shared responsibility among authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, and the publisher.

All participants are expected to act honestly, fairly, professionally, and transparently throughout the editorial and publication process.

JNphi does not tolerate any form of scientific misconduct, including but not limited to:

  • Plagiarism
  • Self-plagiarism
  • Duplicate submission
  • Redundant publication
  • Data fabrication
  • Data falsification
  • Selective reporting of results
  • Citation manipulation
  • Image manipulation
  • Fake peer review
  • Paper mill submissions
  • Inappropriate authorship
  • Guest authorship
  • Gift authorship
  • Ghost authorship
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Ethical approval fraud

Whenever concerns arise regarding possible misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief may request original data, institutional documentation, ethics approvals, informed consent documents, or any additional information necessary to evaluate the concerns.

If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript, retract published articles, publish corrections or expressions of concern, notify authors' institutions or funding agencies, and take any additional actions considered necessary to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

 

3. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or financial considerations.

Neither the publisher nor any external organization may influence editorial decisions regarding acceptance, rejection, revision, or publication.

Editors evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of:

  • Scientific originality
  • Methodological quality
  • Ethical compliance
  • Importance of findings
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope

Editorial decisions are never influenced by:

  • Authors' nationality
  • Institutional affiliation
  • Academic rank
  • Gender
  • Religion
  • Political beliefs
  • Race
  • Commercial interests
  • Funding source

The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over all editorial decisions and bears ultimate responsibility for maintaining the scientific integrity of the journal.

 

4. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that every submitted manuscript receives a fair, objective, timely, and confidential evaluation.

Editors shall:

  • evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit;
  • maintain confidentiality throughout the review process;
  • avoid conflicts of interest;
  • select qualified and independent reviewers;
  • ensure that reviewers receive sufficient guidance regarding ethical expectations;
  • identify possible ethical concerns before publication;
  • investigate allegations of misconduct;
  • issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary;
  • preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editors will not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal research or personal advantage.

Editors shall recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest.

 

5. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting manuscripts to the Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) are expected to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity, ethical conduct, and professional responsibility throughout the research, writing, submission, peer-review, and publication processes. Submission of a manuscript to JNphi constitutes the authors' agreement to comply with the journal's editorial policies and internationally recognized standards of publication ethics.

5.1 Originality of Submitted Work

Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts represent original work that has not been previously published, either in whole or in substantial part, and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal, publisher, or conference proceedings.

The manuscript should present novel findings, interpretations, theoretical developments, or comprehensive reviews that make a meaningful contribution to the scientific literature. If portions of previously published work are included, they must be appropriately cited and clearly distinguished from the new material.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyrighted material, including figures, tables, illustrations, questionnaires, or substantial excerpts from previously published works.

5.2 Accuracy and Integrity of Research

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all data, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions presented in the manuscript are accurate, complete, and honestly reported.

Research findings must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively reported, or manipulated to produce misleading conclusions. Data should accurately reflect the observations obtained during the study, and statistical analyses must be conducted using appropriate and transparent methods.

Authors should retain original research data and supporting documentation for a reasonable period after publication and be prepared to provide these materials to the editorial office upon request if questions arise regarding the validity or integrity of the published work.

5.3 Ethical Conduct of Research

Authors must ensure that all research has been conducted in accordance with applicable national and international ethical standards.

Research involving human participants must have received approval from an appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB), Ethics Committee, or equivalent authority before the study commenced, where required by law or institutional policy.

Studies involving animals must comply with internationally accepted principles for the ethical care and use of laboratory animals and must have received approval from the appropriate institutional authority.

Authors should include the name of the approving ethics committee, approval number (where applicable), and a statement confirming ethical approval within the manuscript.

5.4 Informed Consent

When research involves identifiable human participants, authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained before participation.

For studies including clinical photographs, identifiable images, personal information, or case reports, explicit written consent for publication must also be obtained where required.

Authors are responsible for protecting participant confidentiality and privacy throughout the manuscript.

5.5 Data Transparency

Authors should accurately describe the methods used to collect, analyze, and interpret their data.

Whenever possible, authors are encouraged to make the underlying research data publicly available through recognized repositories or provide them upon reasonable request.

Where data sharing is restricted because of ethical, legal, or privacy considerations, authors should clearly explain these limitations within the manuscript.

5.6 Plagiarism and Proper Citation

Authors must ensure that all submitted work is entirely their own and that the ideas, methods, data, figures, and words of others are appropriately acknowledged through accurate citation.

Plagiarism in any form—including direct copying, close paraphrasing without attribution, mosaic plagiarism, or the unauthorized use of another person's intellectual work—is considered serious publication misconduct.

All submitted manuscripts are screened using professional plagiarism detection software before entering peer review.

Manuscripts containing unacceptable levels of textual overlap or evidence of plagiarism may be rejected without external review.

5.7 Duplicate, Redundant, and Concurrent Submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.

Publication of substantially similar manuscripts based on the same data without appropriate justification, cross-referencing, or editorial approval constitutes redundant publication and is considered unethical.

If closely related manuscripts have been submitted or published elsewhere, authors must disclose these publications during submission.

5.8 Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI

Authors may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools solely to improve language, grammar, readability, or formatting, provided that human authors carefully review and verify all generated content.

AI systems, including generative language models, cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scientific work.

Any substantial use of AI-assisted technologies during manuscript preparation should be transparently disclosed in the manuscript or cover letter, as appropriate.

Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, validity, and integrity of all content submitted for publication.

5.9 Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the conduct, interpretation, or reporting of their research.

If no conflicts of interest exist, authors should explicitly state:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

5.10 Funding Disclosure

All sources of financial support for the research, including grants, institutional funding, commercial sponsorship, or other financial assistance, must be fully disclosed.

The role of the funding organization in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions should also be described where applicable.

5.11 Cooperation During Editorial Investigations

Authors are expected to cooperate fully with the editorial office during investigations concerning potential ethical issues.

Upon request, authors may be asked to provide:

  • original research data;
  • laboratory records;
  • ethics approval documentation;
  • informed consent documentation (where appropriate);
  • statistical analysis files;
  • additional methodological information.

Failure to provide requested documentation within a reasonable period may result in rejection of the manuscript or appropriate post-publication action.

5.12 Post-Publication Responsibility

Authors have an ongoing responsibility to maintain the accuracy of the published scientific record.

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published article, they must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate fully in issuing a correction, corrigendum, retraction, or other appropriate editorial action.

Authors are expected to respond promptly to editorial correspondence concerning post-publication questions, comments, or concerns regarding their work.

5.13 Compliance with Journal Policies

Submission to the Journal of NeuroPhilosophy confirms that all authors have read, understood, and agreed to comply with the journal's Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies.

Failure to comply with these policies may result in editorial actions including manuscript rejection, suspension of future submissions, publication of corrections or retractions, notification of relevant institutions or funding bodies, or other actions deemed necessary to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

 

6. Authorship Criteria (ICMJE and CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy)

The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) is committed to ensuring that authorship accurately reflects each individual's scholarly contribution to the published work. Authorship carries both academic credit and public responsibility. All listed authors must have made substantial intellectual contributions to the manuscript and must be willing to take responsibility for its content.

JNphi follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and encourages the use of the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to promote transparency in author contributions.

6.1 Criteria for Authorship

To qualify as an author, each individual should satisfy all of the following four ICMJE criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
  2. Participation in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content;
  3. Final approval of the version to be published;
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who meet all four criteria should be listed as authors.

Persons who contributed to the work but do not satisfy all four criteria should not be listed as authors. Their contributions should instead be recognized in the Acknowledgements section after obtaining their permission.

6.2 Author Accountability

All authors share collective responsibility for the integrity of the published work.

Each author is expected to:

  • approve the final manuscript before submission;
  • verify the accuracy of the portions to which they contributed;
  • disclose any conflicts of interest;
  • cooperate with editorial investigations if ethical concerns arise;
  • assist in correcting or retracting the publication if necessary.

The corresponding author bears primary responsibility for communication with the journal during submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication correspondence.

6.3 Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that:

  • all eligible contributors have been appropriately included as authors;
  • no individual meeting authorship criteria has been omitted;
  • all listed authors have approved the submitted and final versions of the manuscript;
  • all authors agree to the order of authorship;
  • all conflicts of interest and funding sources have been accurately disclosed;
  • ethical approvals and informed consent statements are complete where applicable;
  • all communication with the editorial office is conducted accurately and promptly.

The corresponding author acts on behalf of all co-authors during the editorial process but does not assume exclusive responsibility for the scientific integrity of the work.

6.4 CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy

JNphi encourages authors to specify individual contributions using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). The following contributor roles may be used, where applicable:

  • Conceptualization
  • Methodology
  • Software
  • Validation
  • Formal Analysis
  • Investigation
  • Resources
  • Data Curation
  • Writing – Original Draft
  • Writing – Review & Editing
  • Visualization
  • Supervision
  • Project Administration
  • Funding Acquisition

Authors should include a Contributor Statement at the end of the manuscript describing each author's specific contributions.

Example:

Author Contributions
A.B.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft.
C.D.: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing.
E.F.: Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition.

The Contributor Statement promotes transparency but does not replace the authorship criteria established by the ICMJE.

6.5 Equal Contributions

If two or more authors contributed equally to the work, this should be clearly indicated in the manuscript.

For example:

"These authors contributed equally to this work."

Equal contribution statements should accurately reflect the level of participation and should not be used solely for honorary purposes.

6.6 Joint Senior Authors

Where appropriate, authors may identify joint senior authors by including a statement such as:

"These authors jointly supervised this work."

Such statements should accurately represent the supervisory roles performed during the research.

6.7 Acknowledgements

Individuals who contributed to the study but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately.

Examples include assistance with:

  • technical support;
  • language editing;
  • administrative assistance;
  • statistical consultation;
  • data collection under supervision;
  • laboratory assistance;
  • general supervision without substantial intellectual contribution.

Authors must obtain permission from acknowledged individuals before publication.

6.8 Unacceptable Authorship Practices

JNphi considers the following practices to constitute publication misconduct:

  • Guest authorship: listing an individual who made little or no scholarly contribution because of reputation or influence.
  • Gift (Honorary) authorship: granting authorship out of courtesy, friendship, institutional hierarchy, or professional status.
  • Ghost authorship: failing to acknowledge an individual who made a substantial scholarly contribution.
  • Purchased authorship: obtaining authorship in exchange for payment or other improper benefit.
  • Artificial intelligence authorship: listing an AI system, chatbot, or language model as an author.

Such practices violate internationally accepted publication ethics and may result in manuscript rejection or post-publication corrective action.

6.9 Artificial Intelligence and Authorship

Artificial intelligence systems, including generative AI tools and large language models, cannot satisfy the ICMJE authorship criteria because they cannot:

  • assume responsibility for scientific content;
  • approve the final manuscript;
  • disclose conflicts of interest;
  • respond to editorial inquiries;
  • accept accountability for published work.

Accordingly, AI systems must not be listed as authors or co-authors under any circumstances.

Human authors remain fully responsible for all AI-assisted content included in the manuscript.

6.10 Authorship Disputes

JNphi does not adjudicate disputes regarding authorship among research collaborators.

Authors are expected to resolve authorship disagreements before manuscript submission.

If an authorship dispute arises during peer review or after publication, editorial processing may be suspended until all parties reach agreement or the relevant institution completes an investigation.

The journal may request written confirmation from all authors before proceeding with editorial decisions.

6.11 Verification of Authorship

The editorial office reserves the right to request documentation confirming individual author contributions whenever questions arise regarding authorship.

Failure to provide satisfactory documentation may result in rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction, retraction of the article, or notification of the authors' institution where appropriate.

 

7. Changes in Authorship

The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) recognizes that authorship is a matter of academic responsibility, transparency, and accountability. Authorship should accurately reflect each contributor's scholarly involvement in the research and manuscript preparation. Changes to the author list after submission are therefore permitted only under exceptional circumstances and must be fully justified.

JNphi follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling requests for changes in authorship.

7.1 Definition of Authorship Changes

Authorship changes include, but are not limited to:

  • addition of an author;
  • removal of an author;
  • replacement of an author;
  • changes in the order of authors;
  • changes to the corresponding author;
  • correction of an author's name, affiliation, or institutional details.

Any such changes must accurately reflect the actual contributions of each author and must not be made for honorary, administrative, financial, or personal reasons.

7.2 Changes Before Acceptance

Requests to modify the authorship of a manuscript before acceptance must be submitted by the corresponding author and include:

  • a clear explanation for the requested change;
  • confirmation that all authors have reviewed and approved the proposed change;
  • written consent from every listed author, including any author being added or removed;
  • confirmation that the revised author list complies with the journal's authorship criteria.

The Editor-in-Chief may request additional documentation if necessary before approving the change.

Editorial review of the manuscript may be suspended until the authorship issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

7.3 Changes After Acceptance

Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, changes in authorship are considered exceptional.

Requests submitted after acceptance will be evaluated only when supported by compelling justification and accompanied by written agreement from all authors.

If the article has already entered production, publication may be delayed while the request is reviewed.

The journal reserves the right to reject requests that lack adequate justification or fail to demonstrate unanimous author agreement.

7.4 Changes After Publication

Following publication, changes to authorship will be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

If a legitimate authorship error is confirmed after publication, the journal may publish a formal Correction (Corrigendum) to update the scholarly record.

Where an authorship dispute raises concerns regarding the integrity of the research, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern while the matter is investigated.

In cases involving confirmed research misconduct, the journal reserves the right to retract the article in accordance with its Retraction Policy.

7.5 Required Documentation

Requests for authorship changes should normally include:

  • a detailed explanation of the reason for the requested change;
  • written consent from all listed authors;
  • written consent from any newly added author;
  • written confirmation from any author being removed;
  • revised Author Contributions (CRediT) statement where applicable;
  • updated Conflict of Interest declarations, if required.

The editorial office may request additional supporting documentation whenever necessary.

7.6 Authorship Disputes

JNphi does not adjudicate disputes concerning authorship among collaborators.

Responsibility for determining authorship rests with the authors and, where appropriate, their employing institutions.

If an authorship dispute arises during editorial assessment or after publication, the journal may:

  • suspend editorial processing;
  • request clarification from all authors;
  • request an institutional investigation;
  • await the outcome of an institutional inquiry before making an editorial decision.

The journal will not make independent determinations regarding ownership of intellectual contributions in disputed cases.

7.7 Institutional Investigations

Where serious disagreement exists regarding authorship, contributor roles, or research integrity, the Editor-in-Chief may refer the matter to the relevant institution(s), employer(s), funding organization(s), or research integrity office.

Editorial action may be postponed until the institutional investigation has concluded.

JNphi reserves the right to act upon the findings of such investigations when determining appropriate editorial actions.

7.8 Misrepresentation of Authorship

Knowingly providing false or misleading information regarding authorship constitutes publication misconduct.

Examples include:

  • gift or honorary authorship;
  • ghost authorship;
  • purchased authorship;
  • unauthorized inclusion of individuals as authors;
  • removal of legitimate contributors without their consent;
  • false declarations regarding author contributions.

Such practices may result in:

  • immediate rejection of the manuscript;
  • withdrawal of an accepted manuscript;
  • publication of a correction or retraction;
  • notification of the authors' institution(s) or funding agency(ies);
  • temporary or permanent restrictions on future submissions to JNphi.

7.9 Editorial Authority

The final decision regarding any request for changes in authorship rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

The journal reserves the right to refuse any authorship modification that is inconsistent with its Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies, the recommendations of COPE and ICMJE, or the principles of research integrity.

All approved authorship changes will be documented as part of the permanent scholarly record to ensure transparency and maintain the integrity of the published literature.

8. Acknowledgements

The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) recognizes that many individuals and organizations may contribute to a research project without fulfilling the criteria for authorship. Such contributions should be acknowledged appropriately to ensure transparency while preserving the integrity of the authorship record.

Only individuals who do not meet the journal's authorship criteria, as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), should be included in the Acknowledgements section.

8.1 Individuals Eligible for Acknowledgement

The Acknowledgements section may include individuals or organizations that have made valuable contributions to the work, including but not limited to:

  • technical assistance;
  • laboratory or field support;
  • statistical consultation;
  • data collection assistance;
  • administrative or logistical support;
  • editorial or language editing services;
  • manuscript proofreading;
  • scientific advice that did not constitute substantial intellectual contribution;
  • acquisition of materials or equipment;
  • institutional or departmental support.

Such contributions should not be interpreted as authorship.

8.2 Permission to be Acknowledged

Authors must obtain permission from all individuals before including their names in the Acknowledgements section.

Being acknowledged does not imply that the acknowledged individual:

  • endorses the findings or conclusions;
  • accepts responsibility for the published work;
  • participated in the interpretation of the results;
  • satisfies the journal's authorship criteria.

8.3 Professional Editing and Language Assistance

Authors who receive assistance from professional language editing, scientific editing, or manuscript preparation services should disclose this support in the Acknowledgements section.

Authors remain fully responsible for the scientific accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript regardless of any editorial assistance received.

8.4 Artificial Intelligence Disclosure

If artificial intelligence (AI) tools or large language models were used solely to improve grammar, spelling, readability, formatting, or language quality, authors should disclose this use transparently when appropriate.

AI systems, including generative AI tools, must not be acknowledged as authors or contributors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scientific work.

Disclosure of AI-assisted language editing does not diminish the responsibility of the human authors, who remain fully accountable for all aspects of the manuscript.

8.5 Funding and Institutional Support

Financial support should normally be reported in the separate Funding Statement. However, institutions, departments, laboratories, or organizations that provided non-financial support—such as access to facilities, equipment, software, or technical infrastructure—may also be acknowledged where appropriate.

Acknowledgement of institutional support does not imply endorsement of the research findings by the supporting organization.

8.6 Conflict of Interest

Individuals acknowledged in the manuscript are not considered authors and are therefore not required to complete author declarations. However, authors should ensure that any acknowledged contribution does not create an undisclosed conflict of interest or give a misleading impression regarding responsibility for the research.

8.7 Accuracy of Acknowledgements

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all acknowledgements are accurate, complete, and appropriate.

The journal reserves the right to request revisions or the removal of acknowledgements that are misleading, promotional, defamatory, or inconsistent with accepted standards of scholarly publishing.

8.8 Sample Acknowledgement Statement

The following example may be used as a guide:

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Jane Smith for statistical consultation and Mr. John Doe for technical laboratory assistance. We also acknowledge the Department of Neuroscience at XYZ University for providing access to research facilities. Professional English language editing was provided by ABC Scientific Editing Services. These individuals and organizations contributed to the work but did not meet the criteria for authorship.

The inclusion of an Acknowledgements section promotes transparency by appropriately recognizing valuable contributions while maintaining a clear distinction between contributors and authors, thereby supporting the integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Conflict of Interest Policy

The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of transparency, objectivity, and integrity in scholarly publishing. Authors, editors, reviewers, and members of the Editorial Board are expected to disclose any relationships or interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, editorial decisions, or peer-review process.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily imply misconduct. However, undisclosed competing interests may undermine the credibility of published research and compromise confidence in the scientific record. Therefore, complete and timely disclosure is essential.

9.1 Definition of a Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest (also referred to as a competing interest) exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest—such as the validity of research, editorial objectivity, or impartial peer review—could be influenced, or appear to be influenced, by a secondary interest.

Conflicts may be financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal, whether actual, potential, or perceived.

9.2 Author Disclosure Requirements

All authors must disclose any relationships or activities that could reasonably be viewed as influencing the conduct, interpretation, or reporting of the research.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

  • employment or consultancy with a commercial organization;
  • stock ownership or stock options;
  • honoraria, speaker fees, or expert testimony;
  • patents (pending or granted) or intellectual property rights;
  • research grants or other financial support;
  • paid advisory or editorial positions;
  • personal, academic, or institutional relationships that could influence interpretation of the findings;
  • leadership roles in professional societies or organizations directly related to the subject of the manuscript.

Authors should disclose both financial and non-financial competing interests that are relevant to the submitted work.

9.3 Funding and Sponsor Involvement

All sources of financial support must be disclosed in the manuscript.

Authors should clearly state the role of the funding organization in:

  • study design;
  • data collection;
  • data analysis;
  • interpretation of results;
  • manuscript preparation;
  • the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

If the funding source had no involvement in these activities, authors should explicitly state this.

9.4 Declaration of No Competing Interests

If no competing interests exist, authors should include the following statement in their manuscript:

Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that they have no known financial or non-financial competing interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

9.5 Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts in which they have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Examples include manuscripts submitted by:

  • current or recent collaborators;
  • colleagues from the same institution;
  • former or current students or supervisors;
  • close personal acquaintances or family members;
  • individuals with whom a financial relationship exists.

When such conflicts arise, editorial responsibility will be transferred to another qualified editor with no competing interests.

Editors must not use unpublished information obtained during editorial handling for personal research, professional advantage, or financial benefit.

9.6 Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are expected to decline invitations to review manuscripts whenever a conflict of interest exists.

Potential conflicts include:

  • personal relationships with the authors;
  • direct scientific competition;
  • recent collaboration;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • financial interests related to the research;
  • any circumstance that could compromise an objective and unbiased review.

If reviewers become aware of a conflict after accepting a review invitation, they should immediately notify the editorial office and withdraw from the review process.

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

9.7 Editorial Board Members

Editorial Board members are subject to the same conflict of interest requirements as editors.

When submitting manuscripts to JNphi, Editorial Board members receive no preferential treatment. Their submissions are handled independently through the journal's standard double-blind peer-review process by editors who have no competing interests.

Editorial Board members are excluded from all editorial decisions regarding their own submissions.

9.8 Management of Conflicts of Interest

Disclosure of a competing interest does not automatically prevent publication.

The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate disclosed interests to determine whether additional measures are necessary to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the editorial process.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:

  • request additional disclosure;
  • appoint independent editors or reviewers;
  • publish disclosed competing interests alongside the article;
  • seek clarification from the authors;
  • decline to consider the manuscript if the conflict cannot be appropriately managed.

9.9 Failure to Disclose Competing Interests

Failure to disclose relevant competing interests constitutes a breach of publication ethics.

If an undisclosed conflict is identified before publication, editorial assessment may be suspended until the matter is resolved.

If an undisclosed competing interest is discovered after publication, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

  • publish a Correction or Corrigendum;
  • issue an Editorial Note or Expression of Concern;
  • conduct an editorial investigation;
  • notify the authors' institution or funding organization where appropriate;
  • retract the article if the undisclosed conflict has significantly affected the integrity, interpretation, or reliability of the published work.

9.10 Transparency and Public Disclosure

All relevant competing interests disclosed by the authors will be published with the article whenever appropriate.

JNphi believes that transparent disclosure enables readers, reviewers, and the scientific community to evaluate published research objectively while preserving confidence in the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in managing and resolving conflicts of interest, and reserves the right to request additional information whenever necessary to ensure a fair, transparent, and unbiased publication process.

10. Funding Disclosure Policy

The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi) is committed to promoting transparency regarding the financial support of published research. Disclosure of funding sources enables readers, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders to evaluate the potential influence of financial support on the design, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of scientific studies.

All authors are required to disclose all sources of financial support related to the submitted work. Complete and accurate funding information contributes to the integrity, transparency, and credibility of the scholarly record.

10.1 Funding Disclosure Requirement

Authors must disclose all financial support received for the research, manuscript preparation, or publication of the submitted work.

Funding may originate from, but is not limited to:

  • government agencies;
  • research councils;
  • universities and academic institutions;
  • hospitals or healthcare organizations;
  • charitable foundations;
  • non-profit organizations;
  • commercial companies;
  • industry partners;
  • private sponsors;
  • international organizations.

All funding sources should be disclosed regardless of the amount of financial support received.

10.2 Role of the Funding Source

Authors must clearly describe the role of the funding organization in the research.

Where applicable, authors should state whether the funding organization participated in:

  • study conception or design;
  • data collection;
  • data analysis;
  • interpretation of the findings;
  • manuscript preparation;
  • editorial review;
  • the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

If the funding organization had no involvement in these activities, authors should explicitly state this.

10.3 Grant Numbers and Funding Identification

Authors are encouraged to provide:

  • the full name of each funding organization;
  • grant or award numbers;
  • project identification numbers where applicable.

Whenever possible, funding agencies should be identified using their official names to facilitate indexing and metadata exchange, including compatibility with the Crossref Funder Registry.

10.4 Multiple Funding Sources

If a study received financial support from more than one organization, all funding sources should be disclosed.

Authors should clearly identify which components of the research were supported by each funding organization whenever applicable.

10.5 No Funding Statement

If the research received no external financial support, authors should include the following statement:

Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.

Alternatively, when appropriate:

No specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors was received for this research.

10.6 Institutional Support

Institutional resources routinely available to researchers, such as office space, library services, standard laboratory facilities, or general departmental infrastructure, ordinarily do not require detailed disclosure unless they constitute a significant source of support for the reported work.

Substantial institutional financial or material support should, however, be acknowledged appropriately.

10.7 Relationship Between Funding and Editorial Decisions

The existence of financial support does not influence editorial decisions.

Editorial evaluation, peer review, and publication decisions are based solely on:

  • scientific quality;
  • originality;
  • methodological rigor;
  • ethical compliance;
  • relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.

Funding from commercial organizations, governmental agencies, or other institutions neither guarantees nor prevents publication.

10.8 Funding and Conflicts of Interest

Disclosure of funding does not replace the requirement to disclose competing interests.

Authors must submit separate Funding Statement and Conflict of Interest Statement sections, even when the funding source could potentially represent a competing interest.

Where a financial sponsor may reasonably be perceived as having an interest in the study outcomes, this relationship should also be disclosed under the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

10.9 Accuracy of Funding Information

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all funding information is complete, accurate, and current at the time of submission.

If funding information changes before publication, authors should notify the editorial office promptly.

If inaccurate or incomplete funding information is discovered after publication, the journal may issue a formal Correction (Corrigendum) to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record.

10.10 Editorial Verification

The editorial office reserves the right to request additional information or documentation concerning reported funding, including grant numbers, award documentation, or confirmation from funding organizations where necessary.

Failure to disclose significant financial support may constitute a breach of publication ethics and may result in editorial action in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies.

10.11 Transparency and Public Disclosure

Funding information provided by the authors will be published as part of the final article to ensure transparency and to enable readers to evaluate the research within its appropriate funding context.

JNphi supports open and transparent reporting of research funding as an essential component of responsible scholarly publishing and encourages authors to provide complete, accurate, and verifiable funding information in accordance with international best practices.