Publication Ethics

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, editorial independence, and transparency. The journal follows internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing and aligns its policies with the guidelines and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All authors, editors, reviewers, and members of the editorial team are expected to uphold the principles of honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability, and respect for the scholarly record.

1. Ethical Principles

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy considers ethical conduct an essential component of the publication process. Manuscripts must present original scholarly work, accurately report research findings, appropriately acknowledge the contributions of others, and comply with all applicable ethical and legal requirements.

The journal does not tolerate fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulation of the publication process, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that:

  • the submitted manuscript represents original work;
  • the manuscript has not been published previously, in whole or in substantial part, except where appropriately disclosed and permitted;
  • the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
  • all sources, quotations, data, images, and intellectual contributions are appropriately acknowledged;
  • the reported research is presented accurately and transparently;
  • all authors have approved the submitted version and agree to its publication;
  • any relevant conflicts of interest are disclosed;
  • all sources of financial or institutional support are disclosed;
  • appropriate ethical approval and informed consent are obtained where human or animal research requires them;
  • any use of artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of the manuscript is disclosed in accordance with Section 19; and
  • the journal is informed promptly if a significant error is identified in a published article.

3. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship should be based on substantial intellectual contribution to the work. Individuals listed as authors should have made meaningful contributions to the conception or design of the work, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, contributed to drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for the work.

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

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy does not accept honorary, guest, gift, or ghost authorship. All individuals who meet the journal's authorship criteria should be appropriately recognized.

The journal encourages authors to provide transparent information about individual contributions where appropriate, including contributions such as conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data analysis, writing, review and editing, supervision, and project administration.

4. Changes in Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after manuscript submission must be made in writing to the editorial office and must include a clear explanation for the requested change.

Any change in authorship must be approved by all authors, including authors who are being added or removed. The journal may request written confirmation from all affected authors before approving a change.

Authorship changes after publication will normally require an appropriate published correction or other editorial action, depending on the circumstances.

5. Acknowledgements

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately. Authors should obtain permission from individuals before including their names in the acknowledgements.

Financial, technical, institutional, editorial, or other forms of assistance that contributed materially to the work should be disclosed where appropriate.

6. Conflict of Interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, review, editorial decision, or interpretation of findings.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not necessarily prevent publication or participation in the review process. However, relevant conflicts must be disclosed so that appropriate measures can be taken to preserve transparency and editorial independence.

An editor who has a conflict of interest with a manuscript, including a close professional or personal relationship with an author, does not participate in its handling or decision. The manuscript is assigned to another editor with no conflict. Manuscripts submitted by a Co-Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor are handled entirely by another editor, and the submitting editor has no access to the review process or the decision.

7. Funding Disclosure

Authors must disclose all sources of financial or institutional support that contributed to the research or preparation of the manuscript.

Where applicable, authors should identify the funding organization(s), grant or project number, and the role of the funder in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

8. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy does not tolerate plagiarism or inappropriate reuse of previously published material.

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using appropriate similarity-detection and plagiarism-screening tools, including iThenticate/CrossCheck, where applicable.

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, copying text, ideas, data, images, or other intellectual material without appropriate attribution, substantial unattributed reuse of an author's own previously published work, and presenting another person's work as one's own.

Similarity reports are evaluated by the handling editor in context. A similarity percentage alone does not constitute evidence of plagiarism; editorial assessment considers the nature, location, source, and extent of the overlap.

9. Duplicate, Redundant, and Concurrent Publication

Manuscripts submitted to Journal of NeuroPhilosophy must not be simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

Authors must disclose any closely related manuscripts, previously published articles, preprints, conference papers, datasets, or other publications that could create substantial overlap with the submitted work.

Redundant or duplicate publication may constitute publication misconduct and may result in rejection, correction, retraction, or other appropriate editorial action.

10. Fabrication, Falsification, and Research Misconduct

The journal considers fabrication, falsification, manipulation of data, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, plagiarism, and other forms of serious research misconduct unacceptable.

Where allegations of research misconduct arise, the journal may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors and may contact the relevant institution, research organization, or other appropriate authority when necessary.

Editorial actions will be determined according to the nature and seriousness of the concern and, where appropriate, in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

11. Peer Review Ethics

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy uses a double-blind peer-review process designed to ensure fair, independent, and scholarly assessment of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain confidentiality regarding manuscripts under review;
  • provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;
  • identify potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment;
  • decline review assignments when they cannot provide an impartial assessment;
  • not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage;
  • not upload manuscripts or any part of them into generative artificial intelligence tools; and
  • alert the editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or other serious problems.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under review unless authorized by the handling editor.

12. Editorial Independence and Editorial Responsibilities

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Editorial decisions should not be influenced by commercial interests, political considerations, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merits of the work.

The Co-Editors-in-Chief hold final responsibility for all editorial decisions, including acceptance, rejection, corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern. Associate Editors handle manuscripts assigned to them by subject area and expertise; they assess submissions, select reviewers, evaluate reviewer reports, and recommend decisions to the Co-Editors-in-Chief. The publisher does not take part in editorial decisions. The composition of the editorial team, with affiliations, is listed on the Editorial Team page.

13. Corrections and Errata

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy is committed to maintaining an accurate and reliable scholarly record.

If an error is identified in a published article, the journal will assess its significance and determine the appropriate editorial action.

Minor errors that do not materially affect the interpretation, conclusions, or integrity of the article may be corrected through an appropriate correction notice or editorial amendment.

Substantive errors that materially affect the article's interpretation, reliability, or scholarly record may require a formal published correction or other editorial action.

Corrections should clearly identify the affected article and describe the nature of the correction while maintaining transparency regarding the original publication record.

When an error originates from the journal's production process, the journal will take appropriate steps to correct the published record.

14. Retractions

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy may retract a published article when there is clear evidence that the article is substantially unreliable or that serious publication or research misconduct has occurred.

Possible grounds for retraction include, but are not limited to:

  • fabrication or falsification of data;
  • major plagiarism;
  • serious ethical violations;
  • substantial undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the work;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • major errors that invalidate the principal findings or conclusions; or
  • other circumstances that seriously compromise the integrity or reliability of the published work.

A retraction does not normally erase the original article from the scholarly record. Instead, the original publication should remain identifiable, with a clear and prominent indication that it has been retracted and an explanation of the reason for the retraction.

Retraction decisions are made by the Co-Editors-in-Chief following appropriate assessment of the evidence and, where necessary, consultation with authors, reviewers, institutions, or other relevant parties, in line with COPE retraction guidelines.

15. Expressions of Concern

Where there are substantial concerns about the integrity, reliability, or ethical status of a published article but the available evidence is insufficient to justify immediate retraction, the Co-Editors-in-Chief may publish an Expression of Concern while an investigation or clarification is ongoing.

An Expression of Concern does not itself constitute a finding of misconduct. Further editorial action may be taken when additional information becomes available.

16. Human Research Ethics

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional requirements, including the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Where required, authors should state that the research received approval from the appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board and should provide the relevant approval information (committee name, approval number, and date) in the manuscript.

Informed consent must be obtained from all participants (or their legal guardians) in research involving human participants, and a statement confirming this must be included in the manuscript. Case reports, images, or any other material that could identify an individual require written informed consent for publication.

Authors must ensure that research participants' privacy, dignity, confidentiality, and rights are appropriately protected.

17. Animal Research Ethics

Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international ethical requirements.

Authors should provide appropriate information regarding ethical approval and the measures taken to minimize animal suffering where applicable.

18. Data Integrity and Transparency

Authors are responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the data presented in their manuscripts.

Where appropriate and ethically permissible, authors are encouraged to make underlying data, analytical procedures, materials, code, or other supporting information available to facilitate transparency and reproducibility.

Any restrictions on data availability, including legal, ethical, privacy, or confidentiality restrictions, should be clearly stated.

19. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Authors: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including large language models, cannot be listed as authors, because they cannot take responsibility for the work. Authors who use AI tools for language editing, literature searching, data analysis, or content generation must disclose the tool and the purpose of its use in the Methods or Acknowledgements section. Routine spelling and grammar checking does not require disclosure. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content, including any content produced with the assistance of AI tools. AI-generated images or figures are not accepted unless AI is itself the subject of the research and this is clearly stated.

Reviewers and editors: Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, or any part of them, into generative AI tools, and must not use such tools to write review reports or editorial decisions.

20. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may contact the editorial office regarding editorial decisions, publication procedures, ethical concerns, or complaints relating to the publication process.

Appeals against editorial decisions are handled as follows:

  • the author submits a written appeal to the editorial office within 30 days of the decision, explaining the grounds for the appeal and responding to the reviewers' and editors' comments;
  • the appeal is assessed by a Co-Editor-in-Chief who was not involved in the original decision; where necessary, the manuscript may be sent to an additional independent reviewer;
  • the author is informed of the outcome, normally within 30 days of receipt of the appeal; and
  • the decision on the appeal is final. Only one appeal per manuscript is considered.

Complaints and appeals will be considered fairly and confidentially. The journal may request relevant documentation and may seek independent advice when necessary.

Where a complaint concerns a member of the editorial team, that person takes no part in its consideration, and the matter is handled independently by another Co-Editor-in-Chief. Complaints that cannot be resolved by the journal may be referred to COPE.

21. Ethical Oversight

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy may request evidence of ethical approval, informed consent, data provenance, authorship, funding, or other documentation when necessary to evaluate the ethical integrity of a submission.

Where serious ethical concerns arise after publication, the journal may investigate the matter and take appropriate action to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

22. Editorial Actions in Cases of Misconduct

Depending on the circumstances, possible editorial actions include rejection of a manuscript, suspension of consideration, publication of a correction, publication of an Expression of Concern, retraction, notification of relevant institutions, or other appropriate measures.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and will take into account available evidence and relevant publication-ethics guidance.

23. COPE and International Publication-Ethics Standards

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy follows the principles and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and seeks to apply internationally recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing.

Where appropriate, the journal may consult COPE guidance and COPE flowcharts when addressing complex cases involving authorship, plagiarism, duplicate publication, corrections, retractions, conflicts of interest, peer review, or research misconduct.

For further information about publication-ethics principles and guidance, readers and authors may consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

24. Transparency and Accountability

Journal of NeuroPhilosophy is committed to maintaining transparent editorial and publishing practices. The journal regularly reviews its editorial policies and procedures to ensure that they remain consistent with recognized standards of scholarly publishing and research integrity.

All participants in the publication process—including authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher representatives—share responsibility for protecting the integrity of the academic record.

Last updated: November 2026