Ethical responsibility extends throughout the scholarly publication process, from research design and source selection to manuscript preparation, peer review, publication, and post-publication communication. Authors remain responsible for the reliability of their research and for responding appropriately to legitimate questions concerning its accuracy, provenance, and integrity.

These requirements apply to all scholarly contributions submitted to CPRT, with individual obligations interpreted according to the nature of the research. Breaches of publication ethics may result in editorial action, including manuscript rejection, requests for correction, further investigation, or appropriate post-publication measures. Such actions are determined according to the circumstances and seriousness of the concern.

Originality

Manuscripts submitted to CPRT must represent original scholarly contributions. Authors must ensure that their submissions contain independently developed arguments, analyses, interpretations, or research findings and that previously published materials are appropriately identified and acknowledged.

Authors must confirm that:

• The manuscript has not previously been formally published as substantially the same scholarly work in any language, except where an arrangement has been disclosed and expressly accepted by the journal.
• The manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal or publisher.
• Substantial textual overlap with the authors' earlier publications, including translations or revised versions, has been appropriately disclosed and attributed.
• Previously disseminated material is clearly distinguished from new analysis and original scholarly contributions.
• The manuscript does not misrepresent previously published conclusions or reused material as wholly new findings.

Prior Dissemination and Preprints

Prior dissemination through preprint repositories, conference presentations, working papers, institutional theses, or other academic channels does not necessarily constitute prohibited duplicate publication. Authors must disclose relevant earlier versions and explain their relationship to the submitted manuscript so that the editorial office can assess originality, publication history, and any applicable rights.

Translations, substantially revised publications, and manuscripts derived from earlier works require particular care. Authors should disclose the original source, identify any previously published material, and explain the new scholarly contribution. Acceptance of such submissions is subject to editorial assessment and relevant copyright or licensing requirements.

Proper Attribution and Citation

Accurate acknowledgement of intellectual sources is essential to research integrity. Authors must clearly distinguish their own original analysis from the ideas, arguments, quotations, translations, interpretations, evidence, and creative contributions of others.

Authors are required to:

• Cite primary and secondary sources accurately and consistently.
• Follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, Notes and Bibliography system, as required by the journal's Submission Guidelines.
• Provide sufficient bibliographic information to identify the sources actually consulted.
• Clearly identify direct quotations, paraphrases, translations, and interpretations derived from earlier scholarship.
• Acknowledge relevant editions, translators, editors, commentaries, and textual sources where appropriate.
• Distinguish previously published arguments from new interpretations or original contributions.

Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, translations, research materials, or intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgement. Undisclosed substantial reuse of one's own previous publications may also constitute unacceptable redundant publication or self-plagiarism.

CPRT may employ plagiarism-detection or similarity-assessment tools during editorial screening. Similarity reports are interpreted in context, taking account of legitimate quotations, bibliographies, established terminology, methodological descriptions, and other forms of properly acknowledged overlap.

A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism or misconduct. Editorial decisions concerning suspected inappropriate overlap must be based on a reasonable examination of the relevant material and its scholarly context.

Authorship Criteria

Authorship must accurately reflect substantive intellectual contributions to the submitted scholarly work. All individuals listed as authors must have participated meaningfully in the research and must accept responsibility for their contributions and for the integrity of the manuscript.

Authorship requires:

• Substantive intellectual contribution: Meaningful participation in the research conception, design, philosophical argumentation, source analysis, interpretation, or other central scholarly activities.
• Manuscript development: Participation in drafting the manuscript or critically revising its substantive intellectual content.
• Final approval: Examination and approval of the version submitted for publication.
• Accountability: Agreement to take responsibility for the integrity of the work and to assist in addressing legitimate questions concerning its accuracy or ethical compliance.

Guest authorship, honorary authorship, and ghost authorship are prohibited. Individuals who contribute only administrative assistance, routine technical support, funding acquisition, language proofreading, or other activities insufficient to establish authorship should be acknowledged appropriately rather than included automatically in the author list.

Author Order and Changes to Authorship

All authors should agree on their inclusion, order of authorship, and designation of the corresponding author before submission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the submitted manuscript and are informed of significant editorial developments.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be communicated to the editorial office with an explanation and the agreement of all relevant parties. Changes after acceptance require particular justification and are subject to editorial assessment.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be recognised as authors or co-authors. Human authors remain accountable for any AI-assisted material incorporated into their work.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Authors must disclose relevant relationships or interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the design, interpretation, presentation, or publication of their research. Disclosure supports transparent scholarly communication and allows the editorial office to assess whether any competing interest requires clarification or management.

Relevant competing interests may include:

• Financial interests: Research funding, consultancy arrangements, remuneration, sponsorship, or other financial relationships relevant to the submitted work.
• Institutional interests: Relationships with institutions or organisations whose interests may be directly affected by the research.
• Personal and professional relationships: Relevant relationships that could influence research interpretation or create a reasonable perception of bias.
• Other relevant commitments: Circumstances that may materially affect the independence or interpretation of the scholarly contribution.

Authors must also identify relevant research funding and explain the funder's role in the research or publication process where applicable. The existence of a competing interest does not automatically disqualify a manuscript, provided that the interest is disclosed and can be appropriately managed.

The declaration must be accurate at the time of submission and updated if relevant circumstances change during editorial review. Undisclosed competing interests may require investigation or corrective action when they materially affect the transparency or integrity of the published record.

Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, interviews, surveys, oral histories, ethnographic fieldwork, or related empirical methods must comply with applicable legal, institutional, and professional ethical requirements.

Authors must ensure that:

• Appropriate ethical review or institutional approval was obtained where required, or a valid exemption applies.
• Informed consent was obtained where required and was appropriate to the nature and circumstances of participation.
• Participant privacy, confidentiality, and applicable data-protection obligations are respected.
• The collection, retention, analysis, and sharing of research materials are consistent with the relevant ethical and legal arrangements.
• Participants and communities are not exposed to unnecessary risks through the disclosure of identifying or culturally sensitive information.

Where ethical approval was required, authors should identify the approving institution or committee and provide relevant approval information as appropriate. Where an exemption applies, the basis of the exemption should be explained. The editorial office may request supporting documentation where necessary for assessment.

Cultural and Religious Research Contexts

Research involving religious communities, ritual practices, oral traditions, minority groups, or culturally sensitive knowledge may require additional attention to consent, representation, access restrictions, and community expectations. Authors should explain relevant ethical considerations without treating cultural or religious affiliation as a substitute for individual consent or applicable institutional obligations.

Ethical approval is not automatically required for all philosophical or textual scholarship. The applicable requirements depend upon the research methods, participants, materials, institutional context, and relevant law.

Data Transparency

CPRT recognises that philosophical, textual, historical, and empirical research rely on different forms of evidence. Authors must describe the status and accessibility of research materials accurately, without imposing inappropriate dataset-deposition requirements on scholarship that does not generate independent research data.

All submissions must include a Data Availability Statement, including manuscripts based exclusively on philosophical argumentation, published texts, or existing scholarly literature.

Where research data are involved, authors must:

• Describe data collection, generation, compilation, and analysis accurately.
• Ensure that research materials were obtained and managed ethically.
• Provide appropriate documentation supporting the interpretation of research findings.
• Identify repository information or permissible access arrangements where data can be shared.
• Explain relevant legal, ethical, confidentiality, cultural, or copyright restrictions when public access is not possible.

Statements that data are available upon reasonable request must be used only where the authors are authorised and practically able to provide access. Materials subject to participant confidentiality, intellectual property rights, archival restrictions, or other legal limitations must not be disclosed in violation of those obligations.

Authors should consult the journal's Data Sharing & Availability Policy for further information on appropriate statements, repository access, restricted materials, and the requirements applicable to philosophical and humanities research.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors who use artificial intelligence tools, including generative AI systems and large language models, during research or manuscript preparation must disclose such use in accordance with the journal's AI Use Policy.

The disclosure should identify:

• The name of the AI tool and its relevant version, where available.
• The purpose and extent of AI assistance.
• The research or manuscript-preparation activities in which the tool was used.
• The procedures used to review and independently verify AI-assisted material.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors. Human authors remain responsible for the originality, accuracy, source integrity, theoretical arguments, translations, interpretations, and conclusions presented in their manuscripts.

AI-generated citations, quotations, bibliographic records, factual claims, and translations must be verified against appropriate sources. Automated outputs must not be represented as independently established evidence without adequate scholarly examination.

Authors must not disclose confidential manuscript material, protected participant information, unpublished third-party research, or other restricted content to external AI services without appropriate authorisation and safeguards.

Materially misleading or undisclosed AI involvement may require clarification, correction, or ethical investigation. The journal evaluates suspected misuse on the basis of the relevant evidence and circumstances. Authors should consult the full AI Use Policy for detailed requirements.

Fabrication and Falsification

CPRT prohibits the fabrication, falsification, deceptive manipulation, or misrepresentation of research evidence and scholarly sources. Authors must present their findings, analyses, textual interpretations, and methodological procedures accurately and must not knowingly introduce false evidence into the scholarly record.

Prohibited practices include:

• Inventing research data, interview statements, observations, or analytical results.
• Creating nonexistent references, falsely attributed quotations, or fabricated bibliographic information.
• Altering archival documents, manuscript evidence, images, or other research materials in a way that misrepresents their original content.
• Presenting fabricated translations or invented textual passages as authentic historical or religious sources.
• Misrepresenting the arguments or conclusions of other scholars through deliberate distortion or misleading attribution.
• Concealing material alterations to evidence or analytical procedures where disclosure is necessary for reliable interpretation.

In philosophical and religious scholarship, research integrity requires particular attention to source authenticity, historical context, textual variants, translation choices, and the accurate attribution of ideas to their original intellectual traditions.

Scholarly disagreement, alternative interpretation, or an unintentional error does not automatically constitute fabrication or falsification. Editorial assessment must distinguish legitimate intellectual debate and correctable mistakes from substantiated acts of research misconduct.

Respect for Cultural and Religious Traditions

CPRT encourages rigorous and critical engagement with philosophical and religious traditions across different historical, linguistic, cultural, and intellectual settings. Authors are expected to represent the traditions and communities they examine accurately, with appropriate attention to contextual differences and the complexity of inherited concepts and practices.

Authors should:

• Avoid inaccurate or reductive representations of philosophical schools, religious doctrines, historical communities, or intellectual traditions.
• Distinguish primary-source evidence from subsequent interpretation, commentary, and modern scholarly reconstruction.
• Explain consequential translation decisions, conceptual correspondences, and differences in terminology where relevant.
• Consider the historical and cultural contexts in which philosophical arguments and religious practices developed.
• Avoid discriminatory language, personal attacks, or unsupported claims concerning individuals or communities.
• Respect applicable consent, confidentiality, access, and ethical requirements when research involves living participants or culturally restricted materials.

Critical Inquiry and Scholarly Independence

Respectful scholarship does not require endorsement of the philosophical positions, religious beliefs, or cultural practices under examination. CPRT welcomes critical argumentation, competing interpretations, and reasoned disagreement, including challenges to established intellectual or religious authorities.

Such criticism must be grounded in identifiable evidence, coherent analysis, and accurate representation of the positions being discussed. Differences in religious belief or philosophical commitment must not, by themselves, determine whether a scholarly argument is considered acceptable.

The journal supports intellectual pluralism while maintaining clear requirements for scholarly accountability, evidence-based analysis, and responsible engagement with culturally significant materials.

Corrections and Retractions

Authors have an ongoing responsibility to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record. If an author discovers a significant error, omission, unreliable finding, or ethical concern affecting a published article, the author must notify the CPRT Editorial Office promptly and provide the information necessary for appropriate assessment.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue, the journal may consider:

• Correction: A notice addressing a significant but limited error where the article's principal conclusions remain sufficiently reliable.
• Expression of Concern: A notice alerting readers to a material unresolved concern where the available evidence does not yet support a definitive conclusion.
• Retraction: A notice identifying a publication whose principal findings or scholarly record are substantially unreliable, or where another serious concern justifies retraction under the journal's publication-ethics standards.

Retraction may be appropriate for serious errors as well as established research misconduct. A retraction does not necessarily establish intentional wrongdoing, and the journal should explain the reason for the action accurately and without unsupported allegations.

Where feasible and appropriate, the original publication record should remain identifiable, with a clear notice explaining the correction or retraction and linking the relevant records. Any restrictions on continued access must be justified by applicable legal, ethical, or other compelling considerations.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable editorial enquiries and provide accurate explanations or supporting documentation. The journal determines post-publication action according to the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the need to preserve the reliability of the scholarly record.

Compliance Statement

At the time of submission, authors must confirm that they have read and complied with CPRT's ethical requirements and related publication policies. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting accurate declarations and ensuring that all co-authors have approved the manuscript and are aware of their scholarly responsibilities.

Compliance includes confirmation that:

• The manuscript is original and is not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere.
• All authors meet the journal's authorship requirements and have approved the submission.
• Sources, quotations, translations, and previously published materials are accurately acknowledged.
• Relevant funding, competing interests, ethical approval, and AI-use information have been disclosed.
• An accurate Data Availability Statement has been provided.
• The submitted materials comply with applicable copyright, confidentiality, and research-ethics requirements.

Handling of Suspected Non-Compliance

Where a potential ethical violation is identified, the editorial team may conduct a preliminary assessment, seek clarification from the authors, request relevant documentation, or undertake further investigation where justified by the available evidence.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, appropriate editorial action may include:

• Requesting clarification, amended declarations, or corrections to the manuscript.
• Suspending editorial processing while a material concern is examined.
• Rejecting a manuscript where serious unresolved issues make publication inappropriate.
• Issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when warranted after publication.
• Referring substantiated or serious concerns to a relevant institution or other appropriate body where justified by the circumstances.

Allegations of misconduct must be assessed fairly and proportionately. Authors should ordinarily be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to material concerns. The journal should distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error, legitimate scholarly disagreement, and correctable administrative deficiencies.

Notification of an author's institution is not an automatic consequence of every ethical concern. Such action should be based on the seriousness and evidential basis of the issue, the institution's relevant responsibilities, and the journal's established procedures.

Questions concerning these requirements or the submission of relevant ethical information may be directed to the CPRT Editorial Office at [email protected].