Dia-Noesis: A Journal of Philosophy is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. We believe that maintaining these standards is integral to fostering intellectual integrity, advancing knowledge and ensuring the credibility of the academic discourse we publish. We state the following principles of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE (available here).
The editor and editorial board are committed to upholding the integrity and quality of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy. Their responsibilities include:
Manuscript Assesment and Decisions.
The editors shall:
– Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and avoid using privileged information obtained during the review process for personal advantage.
– Evaluate manuscripts without bias toward the authors’ personal characteristics or affiliations.
Refrain from reviewing manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist due to competitive, collaborative, or personal relationships with the authors or associated institutions.
– Deciding which manuscripts should be published, guided by the journal’s policies and legal requirements concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
– Ensure that all co-authors approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission.
– Provide clear guidance to guest editors, authors, and reviewers on their roles and responsibilities, including a description of the peer review process.
– Assess manuscripts solely on their academic and intellectual merit, without regard to the author’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, citizenship, political orientation, or social class.
– Ensure a fair and impartial double-blind peer review process, maintaining the confidentiality of all related information, and protecting the identities of authors and reviewers.
Reviewer Management
– Select appropriate reviewers and maintaining a database of qualified reviewers, updated based on their performance.
Ethical Practices
– Ensure unpublished material disclosed in manuscripts is not used in the editors’ own research without the authors’ explicit written consent.
– Take responsive measures when ethical complaints are raised regarding submitted or published manuscripts, following the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts.
– Publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies when necessary.
– Offer new editorial board members comprehensive guidelines and updating existing members on new policies and developments.
Authors’ Responsibilities
Authors must:
– Familiarise themselves with the Manuscript Evaluation Criteria.
– Provide an accurate account of the work performed and objectively discuss its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
– Provide accurate details to their names, surnames and institutional affliliation(s) (if any) while submitting an article.
– Submit only original works and appropriately credit all sources and contributors. Plagiarism in any form is unethical and prohibited (For more concerning plagiarism, see the Sanctioning Policy below).
– Ensure the manuscript has not been published elsewhere or simultaneously submitted to multiple publications.
– Notify the editors promptly if a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in the published work and cooperate in correcting or retracting the manuscript.
Reviewer’s responsibilities
Reviewers must
– follow our Manuscript Evaluation Criteria before they proceed with a formal judgment.
– explain the reasons for their decision and give their recommendations to the author and the editors.
– contact the editors and the author(s) in case the latter’s submitted work contains plagiarised elements. This includes (but not limited to) anauthorised use of someone else’s work, AI plagiarism, high similarity rates, and so on.
– treal all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents.
– review all manuscripts objectively, making observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
– evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class.
– not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.
– All use of AI must be fully disclosed as the author is fully responsible for their manuscripts.
– AI can only be used in a responsible and ethical way; this includes: minor language refinement (proof-reading), translation, annd identification of sources. Manuscripts that rely on AI to generate ideas will not be accepted.
– The use of AI for interpretation of sources is prohibited.
– No author or editor must ever upload their manuscripts to LLMs (like ChatGPT, Gemini, and so on), as this constitutes a grave risks to privacy and may compromise intellectual property copyrights.
– Dia-noesis can reject manuscripts whose author(s) have not followed our AI policy.
Sanctioning policy
– Dia-noesis will immediately retract any electronic file that contains plagiarized material. Please note that retraction means that the electronic manuscript is maintained on the platform, watermarked ‘retracted’ and explanation for the retraction is provided in a note linked to the watermarked typescript.
– Dia-noesis will immediately place authors who have submitted plagiarised content to a blacklist, preventing them from collaborating further with the journal. Following this, the editors will contact the relevant departments of universities affiliated with the author(s) whose material reproduces plagiarized content.
– Authors who use wrong names or fake institutional affiliations will be also sanctioned. Using fake names or false institutional affiliations undermines the integrity of academic publishing and peer review. Sanctions help maintain transparency, accountability, and trust in scholarly communication. This policy is not concerned with honest and reason-able mistakes (as, for example, a typo in a name).
– Reviewers a) who accept articles based on personal favoritism rather than academic merit, b) breach the code of confidentiality, and c) publicise submitted articles – in part or as a whole.
– Accused authors and reviewers are given an opportunity to explain errors before sanctions are imposed.
By adhering to these principles, Dia-Noesis: A Journal of Philosophy seeks to foster a culture of academic excellence and trust, creating a platform where scholars can share their ideas responsibly and confidently.