Sections
I. Alignment with COPE standards
II. Research ethics and data availability
III. Conflict of interest
IV. Authorship and author contribution
V. Responsibilities of contributors
VI. Corrections, retractions, and post-publication procedures
VII. Archiving, licensing, and access
VIII. Peer review process
IX. Plagiarism and redundancy detection
X. Generative AI use
XI. Processing charges and publication fees
XII. Open access
XIII. ORCID policy
XIV. Appeals and complaints
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication integrity, scholarly transparency, and editorial fairness at every stage of the publication process. The policies set out below are binding on all parties involved – authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher – and apply to all content submitted to or published in the Journal. These policies are regularly reviewed to reflect evolving international best practices in research and publication ethics.
The editorial policies and practices of Conatus – Journal of Philosophy are fully aligned with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE Core Practices constitute internationally recognised standards governing the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers, and provide guidance on the handling of misconduct, disputes, and post-publication concerns. The complete COPE Core Practices document is available at:
https://publicationethics.org/files/editable-bean/COPE_Core_Practices_0.pdf
The document is also accessible via the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) repository.
All parties involved in the submission and editorial process are expected to observe these principles, with particular regard to:
All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial and ethical screening prior to peer review. Submissions that the Editors determine to be incompatible with the Journal's aims and scope, academic standards, or publication ethics policies may be subject to desk rejection without external review.
Where submitted work involves empirical research, human participants, personal data, or sensitive materials, authors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable ethical standards and to provide appropriate documentation.
For research involving human subjects, Conatus – Journal of Philosophy follows the Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (World Medical Association, 2013). The full text is available at:
Authors must confirm that:
Where relevant, authors are strongly encouraged to make underlying datasets, interview protocols, archival materials, or supplementary research resources available – either within the article itself or via an appropriate institutional or subject repository – in order to support transparency and reproducibility of research findings.
Submissions involving AI-generated or AI-assisted content or datasets must include a clear and specific statement disclosing the nature, scope, and provenance of such material, as well as a confirmation of authorial responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
Manuscripts that the Editors determine to be in breach of applicable research ethics standards or data protection obligations may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy acknowledges that conflicts of interest are comparatively infrequent in philosophical research. Nevertheless, all parties involved in the publication process – authors, reviewers, and editors – are required to disclose, without delay, any circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their scholarly judgment, objectivity, or impartiality. Such circumstances may include personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships relevant to the submitted work.
Authors are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest at the point of submission. Where no relevant conflicts exist, authors must include the following statement:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Where relevant, the Editors may request that a Conflict of Interest Statement be published alongside the article.
Reviewers are expected to decline invitations to review manuscripts in which personal, professional, or institutional relationships could compromise – or be reasonably perceived as compromising – the impartiality of their evaluation.
Editors must disclose to the Editor-in-Chief any real or potential conflict of interest arising in connection with a submitted manuscript and must recuse themselves from handling such submissions. In these cases, editorial responsibility for the manuscript will be reassigned to another member of the Editorial Board to ensure a fair and unbiased review process.
The Editor-in-Chief appoints Editorial Board members on the basis of demonstrated scholarly expertise, academic standing, and contribution to the field. Membership of the Editorial Board is subject to periodic review in light of scholarly activity and contribution to the Journal.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy requires that all listed authors have made a genuine and substantial intellectual contribution to the submitted work and are prepared to take public responsibility for its content. Authorship must be reserved for individuals who have contributed in one or more of the following capacities:
In addition to making a qualifying intellectual contribution, all listed authors must:
Individuals who contribute to the work but do not satisfy the criteria for authorship – such as those providing administrative support, technical assistance, proofreading, language editing, statistical consultation, or general supervision – should be recognised in the Acknowledgements section and must not be listed as authors.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy does not permit guest, ghost, honorary, or gift authorship in any form. Any change to the authorship of a manuscript after submission – including the addition, removal, or reordering of authors – requires the written agreement of all listed authors and must be formally justified to the Editors. Such changes will only be considered prior to acceptance.
For submissions with more than one author, an Author Contribution Statement must be included in the manuscript, specifying the role of each contributor. Authors are encouraged to follow the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), or to use a concise formulation such as:
A.B. conceived the research idea and developed the theoretical framework; C.D. conducted the literature analysis and drafted the initial manuscript; E.F. critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content; all authors reviewed and approved the final version.
Where all authors have contributed equally, the following statement must be used:
All authors have contributed equally to the conception and design of the work, the drafting and critical revision of the manuscript, and the approval of the final version submitted for publication.
Generative AI systems and automated tools may not be listed as authors. Such tools are incapable of assuming legal or ethical accountability for published scholarly work.
Authors are responsible for submitting original work that has not been published, accepted for publication, or submitted concurrently elsewhere in substantially similar form. They must accurately and completely acknowledge all sources, data, and ideas drawn upon, and must ensure the accuracy and integrity of all claims presented in the manuscript.
Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively, thoroughly, and within agreed timeframes; to maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content and the review process; to declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review invitation; and to provide constructive, evidence-based assessments that support editorial decision-making.
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any part thereof to generative AI systems or third-party tools that may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or data security.
Editors are responsible for ensuring that all submissions are assessed solely on the basis of scholarly merit, originality, argumentative rigour, and relevance to the Journal's scope. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the authors' gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, religious or political beliefs, or personal relationships. Neither the publisher nor any affiliated institution may exert influence over editorial decisions.
By submitting a manuscript or otherwise participating in the editorial process, all contributors confirm their acceptance of and commitment to the ethical standards set out in this Policy. The Journal reserves the right to investigate any alleged breach of these standards and, where misconduct is established, to take appropriate action – including rejection of the manuscript, retraction of published content, and formal notification of the authors' institution or relevant funding body.
In accordance with COPE Guidelines, Conatus – Journal of Philosophy recognises the following categories of post-publication action and applies them consistently and transparently.
Corrigenda (author errors)
A corrigendum addresses an error introduced by the author(s) that does not affect the core conclusions of the published work but requires correction to preserve accuracy and scholarly integrity. Authors wishing to request a corrigendum should contact the Managing Editor or Editor-in-Chief with a clear description of the error and the proposed correction. In the case of co-authored works, the agreement of all listed authors is required. The Editors will determine whether publication of a corrigendum is warranted.
Errata (production errors)
An erratum addresses an error introduced during the editorial production process for which the Journal bears responsibility. Before publishing an erratum, the Journal will notify the author(s), indicate the nature of the error, and seek their approval.
Author name changes
Authors may request a change to their name as it appears in a published article — for reasons including, but not limited to, marriage or civil partnership, divorce, a change in gender identity, or religious conversion. Conatus – Journal of Philosophy will not require authors to disclose their reasons for such a request. Requests will only be accepted directly from the author concerned. Unless otherwise requested, the Journal will update the author's name silently across all relevant publication records and transmit revised metadata to abstracting and indexing services. The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) assigned to the article will remain unchanged.
Addenda
Where an author or authors wish to provide material that substantially supplements the published record – for example, to expand on a key argument, clarify an important point, or present complementary findings – a post-publication addendum may be considered. The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor will determine whether the publication of an addendum is appropriate and necessary.
Expressions of concern
An Expression of Concern may be published at the Editors' discretion to alert readers to unresolved concerns regarding the integrity, accuracy, or ethical conduct associated with a published article, pending investigation or further clarification.
Retractions
In accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, the Journal reserves the right to issue a formal retraction statement where:
Removal of published content
Published content of any kind – including research articles, book reviews, introductory notes, interviews, and editorial material – will be removed entirely from the Journal's online platform where there is clear evidence of:
Authors of works published in Conatus – Journal of Philosophy retain copyright in their work and grant the Journal the non-exclusive right of first publication. All published content is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits sharing, adaptation, and redistribution of the material for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original publication, a link to the licence is included, and no additional restrictions are imposed.
Authors may enter into separate, additional, non-exclusive arrangements for further distribution of the published version – for example, deposit in an institutional repository or inclusion in an edited volume – provided that the original publication in Conatus – Journal of Philosophy is properly acknowledged. Authors are also permitted, and indeed encouraged, to post their work in online repositories or on personal academic profiles before, during, or after the submission process, in the interest of broader dissemination and scholarly engagement.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy is published through the National Documentation Centre (EKT), which provides hosting via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform and digital archiving services, as well as long-term digital preservation through the PKP Preservation Network.
Deposit policy
Authors are permitted to self-archive all versions of their work – including submitted, accepted, and published (Version of Record) versions – in institutional or subject repositories without embargo. Authors retain full rights to their work and may reuse, distribute, or republish it freely, subject to acknowledgement of the original publication in Conatus – Journal of Philosophy.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy operates a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation. This procedure is designed to ensure the impartiality, rigour, and scholarly integrity of all published content.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of demonstrated expertise in the relevant area of philosophical inquiry and are expected to be independent of the submitting author(s) – in particular, they must not be affiliated with the same institution. All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers.
Book reviews, interviews, introductory notes to special issues, and editorial contributions are reviewed directly by the relevant Editor or Editors and are not subject to external peer review.
a. Initial assessment
All submissions undergo an initial editorial and ethical screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts may be subject to desk rejection at this stage if they are found to be incompatible with the Journal's scope, academic standards, or publication ethics policies, or if they fail to meet minimum scholarly criteria, without proceeding to external peer review.
b. Reviewer evaluation and editorial decision
Reviewers are asked to assess each manuscript with respect to its originality, argumentative coherence and rigour, clarity of exposition, engagement with relevant literature, methodological soundness, and overall contribution to the field of philosophy. Reviewers submit a formal recommendation – acceptance without revision, acceptance subject to minor revision, major revision, or rejection – accompanied by a detailed written evaluation.
In cases where the reports of the assigned reviewers are substantially divergent, the Editor-in-Chief may invite a third reviewer to provide an additional independent assessment. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests with the Editor(s) in all cases.
Editorial decisions are ordinarily final; however, appeals may be considered under the circumstances described in Section XIV of this Policy.
c. Review timeline
The full peer-review process, from acknowledgement of receipt to communication of the editorial decision, typically requires up to sixteen (16) weeks. Authors are notified of any significant delays.
d. Editorially reviewed submissions
Book reviews, interviews, and editorial introductions (including those prepared for thematic or special issues) are reviewed solely by the responsible Editor or Editors and are not subject to external peer review.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy is firmly committed to ensuring the originality and integrity of all content it publishes. Upon submission, all manuscripts, that is, research articles, review essays, discussions, and book reviews, are subjected to screening for plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and redundant or duplicate publication using Turnitin plagiarism-detection software, operated through the NKUA Applied Philosophy Research Laboratory. This screening takes place prior to the commencement of peer review and is designed to identify significant textual overlaps with previously published or concurrently submitted material.
Manuscripts found to contain plagiarised content, to constitute duplicate or redundant publication, or to exhibit substantial unacknowledged overlap with previously published work – including the authors' own prior publications – may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process, including after acceptance. Cases of suspected misconduct are investigated by the Editorial Board in accordance with applicable COPE guidelines; confirmed violations may result in manuscript rejection, retraction of published articles, and formal notification of the authors' affiliated institutions or relevant professional bodies.
Authors bear sole responsibility for ensuring that all sources are properly cited, that submitted manuscripts are original and have not been previously published in the same or substantially similar form, and that the manuscript is not under concurrent consideration at another journal or publication venue. Submission to Conatus – Journal of Philosophy constitutes an unambiguous acknowledgement of and agreement with these requirements.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy recognises the growing prevalence of generative artificial intelligence tools in academic workflows and has adopted the following requirements for submissions in which such tools have been used, in addition to all other provisions of this Policy:
This provision is adopted in alignment with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is consistent with the Journal's broader ethical framework.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy does not charge article processing fees (APCs), submission fees, publication fees, or any other costs to authors at any stage of the submission or publication process. Open access to all published content is provided immediately and entirely free of charge. The publication and dissemination of scholarly work in Conatus – Journal of Philosophy remain free of financial barriers for both authors and readers.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy is a diamond open-access journal. All content is made freely available to readers and their institutions without subscription fees, access charges, or any other financial barriers. Authors incur no fees of any kind in connection with the submission or publication of their work.
Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and link to the full texts of all published articles, and to use such content for any lawful purpose, without requiring prior permission from the publisher or the author. This policy is fully consistent with the definition of open access established by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI).
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy provides immediate open access to all published content at no cost to authors or readers, in pursuit of its mission to make original philosophical research freely and universally available, to facilitate scholarly exchange, and to foster broad engagement with philosophical inquiry. Authors are encouraged to deposit their published articles, as well as any data or materials underlying the publications, in institutional or subject repositories under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Diamond open-access status means that:
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy requires all authors to provide a valid ORCID iD (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) at the time of manuscript submission. ORCID is a persistent, non-proprietary digital identifier that uniquely distinguishes individual researchers and supports transparent, reliable, and unambiguous attribution of scholarly contributions.
The provision of ORCID identifiers serves to:
Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that the ORCID iDs of all co-authors are included in the manuscript submission metadata at the time of submission. All authors are responsible for maintaining accurate, current, and complete ORCID records.
ORCID iDs provided at submission will be displayed alongside published articles and incorporated into the bibliographic metadata deposited with Crossref and other relevant abstracting and indexing services.
Authors who do not yet hold an ORCID iD may register for one free of charge at https://orcid.org/.
i. Appeals against editorial decisions
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so if they have substantive grounds to believe that:
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within thirty (30) calendar days of communication of the editorial decision. The appeal must set out, in precise and specific terms, the grounds for the challenge, and must be accompanied by relevant supporting evidence, argumentation, or clarification. Appeals submitted without substantive justification will not be considered.
Upon receipt of an appeal, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct an independent review and may:
The outcome of the appeal review will be communicated to the author(s) in writing within a reasonable timeframe. Decisions reached following an appeal review are final and are not subject to further appeal. The submission of an appeal does not in any way guarantee reconsideration, revision of the decision, or acceptance of the manuscript.
ii. Complaints concerning editorial or publishing conduct
Complaints may concern matters including, but not limited to:
Complaints must be submitted in writing and must provide sufficient factual detail and, where applicable, supporting documentation to enable a thorough and impartial investigation.
All complaints will be treated with strict confidentiality and investigated impartially in accordance with the Journal's publication ethics policies and, where appropriate, the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where the nature or complexity of a complaint so requires, the Journal may consult members of the Editorial Board, independent subject experts, the publisher, or the authors' affiliated institutions in the course of the investigation.
iii. Corrective and remedial actions
If a complaint or investigation establishes evidence of significant error, ethical misconduct, or a material breach of scholarly standards, the Journal will take appropriate corrective action proportionate to the severity of the findings. Such action may include:
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy reserves the right to reject, withdraw from consideration, or discontinue processing any submission associated with conduct determined to be unethical or in breach of this Policy.