A conflict of interest does not necessarily indicate improper conduct, academic bias, or research misconduct. Researchers and editorial participants may have legitimate professional relationships, institutional commitments, financial interests, or intellectual affiliations. The ethical obligation is to disclose relevant circumstances accurately and ensure that any resulting risks to independent judgement are appropriately assessed and managed.

In comparative philosophy and religious studies, questions of intellectual independence may arise from relationships with academic institutions, religious organisations, cultural foundations, research sponsors, or individuals whose work is under evaluation. Such relationships should be considered according to their actual relevance to the research or editorial process rather than treated as disqualifying solely because a particular philosophical or religious perspective is involved.

This policy establishes the journal's standards concerning the identification, disclosure, assessment, management, and publication of competing interests. It applies throughout submission, editorial screening, peer review, publication, and relevant post-publication procedures.

Definition of Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest, also referred to as a competing interest, arises when a secondary interest or relationship has the potential to affect, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, the independent exercise of professional judgement concerning a primary responsibility.

In scholarly publishing, primary responsibilities include the accurate conduct and reporting of research, the fair evaluation of manuscripts, the protection of confidential information, and the preservation of editorial independence. Secondary interests may be financial, personal, institutional, professional, academic, or otherwise related to the work under consideration.

Categories of Competing Interests

Relevant interests may include the following categories:

• Financial interests: Research grants, employment remuneration, consultancy fees, honoraria, sponsorship, financial investments, royalties, or other financial relationships that may be relevant to the research or publication.
• Institutional interests: Relevant relationships with universities, research institutions, religious organisations, cultural bodies, foundations, or other organisations whose interests may be affected by the work.
• Personal interests: Close personal relationships, family connections, significant personal disputes, or other circumstances that could compromise impartial assessment.
• Professional interests: Recent or ongoing research collaborations, supervisory relationships, consultancy arrangements, professional partnerships, or shared projects involving relevant participants.
• Academic interests: Direct scholarly competition, involvement in closely related unpublished research, or circumstances in which the outcome of an editorial assessment may materially affect the individual's academic interests.
• Ideological or intellectual commitments: Specific commitments or organisational relationships that create a demonstrable risk of partiality in the evaluation or presentation of the research.

Actual, Potential, and Perceived Conflicts

CPRT recognises three relevant forms of competing interest:

• Actual conflict: An existing interest or relationship materially interferes with the independent performance of a scholarly or editorial responsibility.
• Potential conflict: A relevant interest or relationship creates a reasonable possibility that independent judgement could become compromised.
• Perceived conflict: A reasonable and informed observer could question the independence of a scholarly or editorial decision because of an identifiable relationship or circumstance.

Disclosure is required where a relationship or interest could reasonably be relevant to the work or the editorial decision. The existence of an interest does not automatically establish that misconduct occurred, that the research is invalid, or that the individual must always be excluded from participation.

Author Responsibilities

Authors must disclose all relevant financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably influence, or be perceived as influencing, the research design, interpretation, presentation, or publication of their work.

All submissions to CPRT must include a Conflict of Interest Statement, including submissions for which the authors have no competing interests to declare. The statement must accurately reflect the circumstances of all authors and should be updated if relevant information changes during editorial consideration.

Interests Requiring Disclosure

Relevant circumstances may include:

• Research funding: Financial support from universities, foundations, religious organisations, government agencies, private institutions, or other sponsors where the relationship may be relevant to the submitted work.
• Employment and institutional relationships: Relevant professional roles or institutional obligations that could materially influence the research or its interpretation.
• Consultancy and advisory activities: Paid or unpaid advisory appointments, consultancy services, or professional engagements directly connected to the subject of the research.
• Personal or professional relationships: Relationships with individuals or organisations whose interests are directly implicated in the research.
• Relevant organisational commitments: Leadership, governance, or representative roles in organisations substantially connected with the subject or outcomes of the research.
• Intellectual property or commercial interests: Royalties, licensing relationships, ownership interests, or other relevant rights from which an author or associated party may benefit.
• Other relevant circumstances: Any relationship or commitment that a reasonable reader might consider important when evaluating the independence of the research.

Ordinary institutional affiliation, disciplinary specialisation, philosophical conviction, or religious identity does not automatically constitute a competing interest. The disclosure requirement concerns circumstances with a meaningful connection to the research or its interpretation.

In studies involving religious organisations, cultural institutions, or philosophical communities, authors should consider whether funding, employment, governance responsibilities, or relevant professional relationships create interests that readers should know when assessing the published research.

Required Conflict of Interest Statement

Authors must provide a clear and accurate declaration with the submission. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining relevant information from all co-authors and ensuring that the submitted statement reflects their collective disclosures.

These examples are illustrative. Authors must adapt the wording to reflect their actual circumstances and must not use a standard declaration that would conceal a relevant relationship.

Relationship to Funding Declarations

Funding acknowledgements and Conflict of Interest Statements serve related but distinct purposes. A funding statement identifies the financial support received for the research, while a competing-interest declaration identifies relationships or circumstances that may be relevant to the independence or interpretation of the work.

Authors should disclose relevant funding accurately, including the identity of the funding organisation and the sponsor's role in research design, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions where applicable.

The receipt of funding does not automatically establish a disqualifying conflict of interest. Its relevance depends on the relationship between the sponsor, the research subject, and the author's professional independence.

Disclosure During Review and Publication

Relevant author declarations must be provided at submission and updated when new circumstances arise during editorial consideration. If a competing interest is identified after submission, the corresponding author should notify the editorial office promptly.

Where disclosure information could compromise double-anonymous peer review, identifying declarations should be provided through the appropriate submission metadata or separate author-information documents rather than inserted into the anonymised review manuscript.

Failure to disclose a material competing interest may require clarification, amendment of the declaration, further editorial assessment, or post-publication action where appropriate. The seriousness of the omission and its effect on the research or publication process must be evaluated before determining the appropriate response.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must undertake assessments independently and disclose any relationship or circumstance that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality. The journal's double-anonymous peer-review system requires particular care in reviewer selection, confidentiality, and the management of competing interests.

Before accepting a review invitation, an invited reviewer should consider whether any professional, institutional, personal, financial, or academic interest may materially affect the fairness of the proposed assessment.

Circumstances Requiring Disclosure

Reviewers should disclose, where known or reasonably suspected:

• Recent collaboration: Recent or ongoing co-authorship, shared research projects, research partnerships, or other substantial academic collaborations with an author.
• Institutional overlap: Current shared institutional affiliation or another close institutional relationship that may affect independence.
• Supervisory relationships: Current or relevant former relationships involving doctoral supervision, mentoring, formal evaluation, or closely connected research training.
• Personal relationships: Close friendship, family connection, significant personal dispute, or other relationship that may affect impartial judgement.
• Financial interests: Financial support, consultancy arrangements, commercial relationships, or other interests directly connected with the manuscript or its authors.
• Direct academic competition: Circumstances in which the reviewer's own research or professional interests may benefit materially from the publication, delay, or rejection of the manuscript.
• Other relevant interests: Any circumstance that prevents the reviewer from providing a fair, independent, and evidence-based assessment.

Disclosure, Declining, and Withdrawal

Reviewers must decline an invitation where a significant conflict prevents them from undertaking an impartial assessment. If the relevance or seriousness of a relationship is uncertain, the reviewer should disclose it to the editorial office before accepting the assignment.

The Handling Editor considers the nature, proximity, and seriousness of the disclosed relationship. Where a conflict can be appropriately managed, the editor may determine whether participation remains permissible. A significant or unmanageable conflict requires the reviewer to decline or withdraw from the assignment.

Current institutional affiliation shared with a known author, recent close collaboration, or a substantial personal or financial relationship will ordinarily warrant selection of another reviewer. The absence of a demonstrable financial interest does not eliminate the possibility of a significant non-financial conflict.

If a relevant relationship becomes apparent after the reviewer has accepted an invitation or begun reviewing, the reviewer must notify the editorial office promptly and should not continue the assessment until the responsible editor has determined the appropriate course of action.

Independence of Scholarly Evaluation

Reviewers must not exploit confidential information gained through peer review for personal academic advantage, research competition, or other unauthorised purposes. They must not impose unnecessary citation requirements to benefit themselves, colleagues, institutions, or particular journals.

Philosophical disagreement, religious difference, or a competing theoretical interpretation does not automatically make a reviewer unsuitable. CPRT expects reviewers to distinguish legitimate scholarly criticism from partiality caused by personal interests or relationships.

Reviewers should consult the journal's Reviewer Guidelines and Peer Review Process for further requirements concerning reviewer independence, confidentiality, responsible use of AI, and the appropriate handling of potential ethical concerns.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors must ensure that manuscript screening, reviewer selection, editorial assessment, and publication decisions are conducted independently and without improperly managed competing interests.

Editors are required to identify and disclose relevant relationships that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their professional judgement concerning a manuscript. This obligation applies to the Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editors, Associate Editors, and other individuals exercising editorial decision-making responsibilities.

Conflicts Requiring Editorial Recusal

Editors must disclose relevant interests and withdraw from controlling the evaluation or decision of a manuscript where an actual or significant perceived conflict cannot be adequately managed. Such circumstances may include:

• A close personal relationship or significant personal dispute involving an author.
• Recent or ongoing substantial research collaboration with an author.
• A direct supervisory, employment, or closely connected professional relationship.
• Current shared institutional affiliation or another significant institutional connection.
• A relevant financial or commercial interest connected to the manuscript or its likely publication.
• Direct involvement as an author, co-author, research collaborator, or other substantial contributor to the submitted work.
• Another circumstance creating a significant risk that the editor cannot exercise independent scholarly judgement.

Reassignment and Independent Handling

Where an editor has a relevant conflict of interest, the manuscript must be assigned to another appropriately qualified editor who can exercise independent responsibility for the assessment. The conflicted editor must not select reviewers, influence review reports, or determine the final decision in a manner that undermines the independence of the alternative arrangement.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict, an appropriately qualified independent editor or senior Editorial Board member should be appointed to oversee the affected submission and exercise the necessary editorial authority. Where administrative coordination by the Publisher is required, such coordination must preserve independent academic decision-making.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals with significant relationships to the journal are subject to the same scholarly and ethical standards as other submissions. Their association with the journal does not provide preferential treatment or guarantee acceptance.

Reviewer Selection and Conflict Management

Handling Editors should consider potential competing interests when identifying and inviting reviewers. Relevant disclosures should be evaluated before the reviewer proceeds, and the editorial office may request clarification or assign an alternative reviewer where necessary.

When a possible conflict is reported during an ongoing assessment, the responsible editor should determine whether the existing review remains usable, whether additional independent assessment is needed, or whether the affected reviewer must be replaced.

Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, research integrity, and relevance to the journal's scope. The existence of competing interests must be managed through appropriate procedures rather than permitted to determine the outcome of the scholarly evaluation.

Publisher Independence

CPRT maintains a clear separation between the financial and administrative operation of the journal and the independent scholarly evaluation of manuscripts. The Publisher supports the infrastructure and administrative functions necessary for publication but must not improperly influence individual editorial decisions.

Manuscript acceptance, revision, and rejection decisions must be determined according to scholarly and ethical standards rather than commercial considerations or the financial interests of the journal or Publisher.

Article Processing Charges and Financial Independence

CPRT observes the following principles regarding publication-related financial matters:

• No financial influence on acceptance: Payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC) does not guarantee publication and must not influence reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions.
• Independent review: Reviewers and Handling Editors evaluate submissions according to academic and ethical requirements, irrespective of the authors' financial circumstances.
• Waiver neutrality: Applications for APC waivers or discounts must not prejudice the assessment or outcome of a manuscript.
• Separation of responsibilities: Financial administration must not be used to pressure editors or reviewers to accept, reject, or accelerate particular manuscripts.
• Transparent publication requirements: Applicable charges and financial policies must be communicated through the journal's relevant publication policies and should not be presented as conditions for receiving a favourable scholarly assessment.

APC arrangements are administered separately from the academic judgement required for acceptance. The handling of payment obligations following acceptance is governed by the journal's applicable APC policy.

Institutional and Commercial Relationships

Financial support, institutional partnerships, sponsorship arrangements, and other relationships involving the Publisher must not be permitted to compromise the editorial independence of CPRT.

Where a particular relationship presents a material risk to independent editorial assessment, the journal should implement appropriate safeguards, which may include disclosure, separation of responsibilities, independent editorial handling, or exclusion of interested individuals from the relevant decision.

The Publisher may assist in arranging independent review of a complaint or conflict involving senior editorial personnel, but this administrative role must not become a means of imposing commercial preferences on scholarly decisions.

CPRT's commitment to editorial independence extends to the investigation of ethical concerns and post-publication corrective actions. Financial considerations must not determine whether a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction is warranted.

Disclosure and Transparency

Transparency concerning competing interests allows readers to evaluate research with an appropriate understanding of relevant relationships and helps the journal manage potential threats to the independence of editorial and scholarly judgement.

CPRT distinguishes between the disclosure of author interests for publication and the confidential management of reviewer, editor, or other interests arising during the editorial process.

Publication of Author Declarations

A Conflict of Interest Statement is required for all submissions and should be included in the published article or its associated publication record. Where relevant competing interests are declared, the statement should provide sufficient information to explain their nature and relationship to the research.

Where no relevant interests are identified, the article should include a clear declaration to that effect. Authors should not use the absence of a financial conflict to imply that no relevant non-financial interest exists if another relationship requires disclosure.

Declarations must be sufficiently informative to support transparency without unnecessarily disclosing confidential information, sensitive personal details, or information unrelated to the scholarly work.

Confidential Editorial Disclosures

Conflicts disclosed by reviewers and editors are ordinarily handled confidentially within the editorial process. Such disclosures may inform reviewer selection, editorial reassignment, recusal, or other safeguards without requiring the publication of private relationships or compromising reviewer anonymity.

Information concerning competing interests should be accessible to those responsible for assessing and managing the relevant concern. Access should be limited to what is reasonably necessary for editorial administration, ethical review, or another appropriate and authorised purpose.

Changes in Circumstances

Competing interests may arise or become apparent after an initial declaration. Authors, reviewers, and editors must notify the editorial office promptly when new information materially changes the accuracy of a previous disclosure or introduces a relevant conflict requiring management.

Where a material declaration requires amendment before publication, the editorial office should ensure that the corrected information is incorporated into the appropriate submission or publication documentation. Issues identified after publication are addressed under the journal's post-publication policies.

Undisclosed Conflicts

Failure to disclose a relevant competing interest may undermine confidence in research or editorial procedures. CPRT will assess concerns involving undisclosed interests according to the significance of the relationship, the available evidence, and the potential consequences for the scholarly record.

The identification of an undisclosed relationship does not automatically establish intentional misconduct or invalidate a published article. The journal must determine whether the omission was material, whether it influenced the research or publication process, and whether a corrective or investigative response is warranted.

Assessment of Undisclosed Interests

Where a potentially undisclosed interest is identified, the editorial team may:

1. Conduct a preliminary assessment. Examine the reported relationship, its relevance to the research or editorial process, and the information available to support the concern.
2. Request clarification. Contact the relevant authors, reviewers, editors, or other parties and provide an appropriate opportunity to explain the circumstances.
3. Evaluate materiality. Determine whether the relationship was relevant, whether disclosure was required, and whether the omission affected the independence or reliability of the research or editorial assessment.
4. Consider independent consultation. Seek specialist or institutional information where the seriousness of the concern requires further verification.
5. Determine the appropriate response. Decide whether a corrected declaration, editorial reassessment, formal publication notice, or another action is justified.
6. Document the outcome. Maintain an appropriate record of the assessment and communicate relevant decisions to the affected parties.

Possible Editorial Actions

Where an undisclosed competing interest is established, the journal may take one or more of the following actions, depending on the seriousness and consequences of the case:

• Declaration amendment: Request an accurate and complete Conflict of Interest Statement.
• Correction: Publish a formal correction where a material omission or inaccurate declaration must be added to the published record.
• Independent editorial reassessment: Arrange additional assessment where the independence of an editor or reviewer may have been materially compromised.
• Expression of Concern: Inform readers of a credible, significant unresolved issue affecting confidence in the publication where a definitive determination cannot yet be made.
• Retraction: Retract the article where the undisclosed interest formed part of a serious and substantiated integrity failure, materially compromised the legitimacy of publication, or otherwise supports retraction under the journal's established policy.
• Further ethical investigation: Refer a sufficiently serious concern for appropriate additional examination when the available evidence or the nature of the case justifies such action.

Retraction is not an automatic consequence of a late or incomplete disclosure. The editorial response must reflect whether the omission can be adequately corrected and whether the article's principal scholarly contribution or publication legitimacy remains reliable.

Fairness and Confidentiality

Investigations concerning competing interests must be conducted fairly and proportionately. The journal should distinguish deliberate concealment from misunderstanding, inadvertent omission, or circumstances that did not reasonably require disclosure.

Relevant parties should ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond before a material adverse determination is reached. Confidential or sensitive information should be handled according to applicable editorial and legal obligations.

Where the concern involves an editor who would otherwise determine the outcome, the matter must be reassigned to an appropriately independent editor or another qualified person capable of reviewing it without a relevant conflict.

Any formal correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction must be clearly identified and linked to the affected publication in accordance with the journal's relevant post-publication procedures.

Reporting a Potential Conflict

Questions concerning competing-interest declarations, requests for clarification, or reports of potentially undisclosed conflicts may be directed to the CPRT Editorial Office. Correspondence should identify the relevant manuscript or publication and explain the nature of the concern, with supporting information where available.

The handling of undisclosed competing interests is governed by the principles of transparency, fairness, scholarly independence, and proportionality. Relevant concerns are considered alongside the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Complaints & Appeals Policy, Corrections Policy, and Retractions, Corrections & Expressions of Concern Policy.