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:
prevention of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and redundant or duplicate publication;
transparent declaration and appropriate management of conflicts of interest;
rigorous, impartial, and confidential peer review;
integrity, accuracy, and responsible reporting of research data and results.
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 – Medical Research Involving Human Participants(World Medical Association, October 2024). The full text is available at:
https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/.
Authors must confirm that:
informed consent was obtained from all participants, where applicable;
the research received approval from a recognised institutional ethics committee or equivalent body;
data have been collected, stored, and reported in accordance with applicable data protection legislation, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679).
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:
conception or design of the study or argument;
development of the principal thesis, theoretical framework, or methodology;
analysis or critical interpretation of sources, data, or literature;
drafting substantial portions of the manuscript;
critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
In addition to making a qualifying intellectual contribution, all listed authors must:
review and approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission;
agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including its accuracy and integrity;
consent to publication in Conatus – Journal of Philosophy.
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.
Conatus – Journal of Philosophy is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, and completeness of the scholarly record. Post-publication concerns are considered in accordance with the COPE Guidelines and the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter, the Journal may publish a corrigendum, erratum, addendum, expression of concern, or retraction notice, or may remove content in exceptional circumstances.
Corrigenda (author errors): A corrigendum may be published when an error introduced by the author affects the accuracy, interpretation, or scholarly record of the published work but does not invalidate its central arguments or conclusions. Authors requesting a correction should contact the Managing Editor or the Editor-in-Chief and provide a clear explanation of the proposed change. For multi-authored works, all authors should normally confirm their agreement. The Editors will determine whether a corrigendum is warranted.
Errata (production errors): An erratum may be published to correct an error introduced during the Journal’s production or publication process. Before an erratum is issued, the Journal will normally inform the author or authors of the error and the proposed correction. Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning or interpretation may be corrected without a formal notice.
Author name changes: Authors may request that their name be changed in previously published content. The Journal will not require authors to disclose the reason for the requested change. Requests must be submitted by the author concerned. Unless the author requests otherwise, the Journal will update the published content and associated metadata without issuing a public correction notice. Updated metadata will be communicated to relevant indexing and abstracting services where possible, while the article’s Digital Object Identifier (DOI) will remain unchanged.
Addenda (significant post-publication information): An addendum may be published when important information becomes available after publication and is necessary to clarify, contextualise, or supplement the original work without altering its central arguments or conclusions. An addendum is not intended to introduce substantial new research or to update an article merely because the relevant literature has developed. The Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor will determine whether publication of an addendum is warranted.
Expressions of concern: The Journal may publish an expression of concern when serious questions have been raised about a published work, but the available evidence is inconclusive, an investigation is ongoing, or a definitive resolution cannot be reached promptly. The expression of concern will be linked to the published work and will explain the nature of the concern as clearly as circumstances permit.
Retractions: Published content may be retracted where there is clear evidence that its findings, arguments, or conclusions are unreliable because of serious error or misconduct; where plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, unethical research, manipulation of the publication or peer-review process, or another serious breach of publication ethics has occurred; or where continued reliance on the work would materially compromise the scholarly record.
Retraction decisions will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, normally following an appropriate investigation and consultation with the authors and, where necessary, reviewers, Editorial Board members, institutions, or other relevant parties. Authors will be given an opportunity to respond, although their consent is not required for a retraction to be issued.
Except where complete removal is legally or ethically necessary, retracted content will remain accessible as part of the scholarly record. It will be clearly identified as retracted and linked to a retraction notice explaining the reason for the decision. The article’s DOI and bibliographic metadata will be retained, and the retraction notice will identify who is retracting the work and distinguish findings of misconduct from honest error.
Removal of published content: Complete removal from the Journal’s online platform will be considered only in exceptional circumstances where continued availability:
Where legally permissible, the DOI landing page and bibliographic metadata will be retained, together with a notice stating that the content has been removed and providing the general reason for its removal.
All correction, addendum, expression-of-concern, retraction, and removal notices will be permanently linked to the affected content, assigned appropriate publication details, and communicated to relevant indexing, abstracting, and preservation services where practicable.
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.
The journal is hosted electronically by the National Documentation Centre (EKT) under a formal cooperation agreement. EKT provides the OJS-based ePublishing infrastructure, technical hosting, metadata dissemination, and digital preservation services. Long-term preservation is supported through the PKP Preservation Network, while persistent identifiers are registered through Crossref.
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:
a. Generative AI tools may be used solely as assistive aids in the preparation of manuscripts – for example, to support language editing, formatting, or initial literature searches. Such tools may not be listed as authors and bear no legal, scholarly, or ethical responsibility for the submitted work.
b. Authors retain full and sole responsibility for the originality, accuracy, intellectual integrity, and scholarly content of their submissions, including any material that has been generated or substantively assisted by AI tools.
c. Any substantive use of generative AI – including, but not limited to, the drafting or paraphrasing of text, the summarisation of arguments or sources, or the translation of content – must be disclosed explicitly within the manuscript at the point of submission. The disclosure must identify the specific tool(s) used and describe the nature and extent of their contribution.
d. Generative AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, citations, references, or other sources; to misrepresent authorship or intellectual contribution; or to circumvent any provision of this Policy or applicable research ethics standards.
e. All submissions involving the use of generative AI tools are subject to the Journal's standard peer-review and ethical oversight procedures, which remain entirely human-led. Manuscripts found to contravene these requirements or other provisions of this Policy may be rejected, retracted, or subject to other appropriate corrective action.
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:
all published content is freely accessible without subscription or author-side payment;
users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, and link to all articles without requiring prior permission, in full conformity with the BOAI definition of open access;
authors are encouraged to deposit published articles and underlying research data in institutional or subject repositories under CC BY-NC 4.0.
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:
ensure accurate and verifiable attribution of authorship and scholarly contributions;
distinguish researchers with identical or similar names across publication records;
enhance the discoverability, citability, and interoperability of published research;
facilitate integration with major abstracting and indexing services, research databases, funding body systems, and institutional repositories.
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:
a significant and material misunderstanding of the manuscript's content or argument has occurred;
the peer-review process was procedurally irregular or demonstrably flawed;
there is clear and documentable evidence of factual error or bias that has materially affected the outcome of the evaluation.
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:
uphold the original editorial decision;
request a supplementary assessment by one or more members of the Editorial Board;
invite an additional independent expert reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.
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:
breaches of publication or research ethics;
undisclosed or improperly managed conflicts of interest;
reviewer misconduct, including partiality or breach of confidentiality;
editorial bias or failure to apply the Journal's policies consistently;
undue or unexplained delays in the editorial process;
allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct involving published or submitted work.
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:
publication of a formal correction or clarification;
publication of an Expression of Concern;
retraction or removal of published content;
suspension of the right to submit to the Journal for individuals found to have engaged in serious or repeated misconduct.
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.