Three Teachings Studies: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism (TTS) is committed to maintaining confidentiality, academic integrity, editorial independence, impartiality, and responsible scholarly conduct throughout the manuscript evaluation and publication process. The journal recognizes that peer review depends on trust, appropriate protection of unpublished intellectual contributions, fair treatment of authors and reviewers, and accountable editorial judgment. Research Articles ordinarily undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers. All participants in the editorial process must respect the confidentiality of submitted materials, disclose relevant competing interests, protect unpublished research, and comply with the journal's applicable ethical requirements. These obligations continue after the completion of a review assignment and are informed by recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Scope and Fundamental Principles

This policy establishes the confidentiality and ethical responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, authorized publishing personnel, and other individuals who participate in the journal's manuscript evaluation and publication procedures.

The policy applies to unpublished submissions, supplementary materials, reviewer invitations, review reports, editorial communications, internal deliberations, and other information received or generated through confidential editorial activities.

The journal's requirements are based on the following principles:

• Confidentiality: Unpublished submissions and protected editorial information must be accessed, used, and disclosed only for legitimate and authorized purposes.
• Scholarly Independence: Manuscript evaluations must be based on relevant academic standards rather than inappropriate financial, institutional, personal, or other external influence.
• Intellectual Property Protection: Unpublished arguments, translations, textual discoveries, research findings, and other original contributions must not be misappropriated or used for unauthorized advantage.
• Fairness and Impartiality: Authors and reviewers must be treated fairly, and relevant competing interests must be disclosed and appropriately managed.
• Professional Accountability: Individuals participating in editorial work remain responsible for their decisions, communications, handling of information, and compliance with applicable ethical requirements.
• Proportionate Disclosure: Confidential information may be disclosed only when authorized or otherwise justified by legitimate editorial, legal, ethical, or scholarly recordkeeping responsibilities.

These principles apply throughout the editorial process and continue to govern protected information after a manuscript has been accepted, rejected, withdrawn, or published.

Confidential Information Covered by This Policy

Confidential editorial information includes unpublished scholarly materials and records that have been entrusted to TTS or generated during manuscript assessment. Protection extends beyond the main manuscript file to related information that may reveal research content, reviewer identities, or confidential editorial decisions.

Information already lawfully available to the public does not become confidential merely because it is mentioned or cited in a submitted manuscript. Nevertheless, the unpublished submission itself, confidential reviewer assessments, and nonpublic editorial communications remain protected.

The journal's confidentiality requirements do not prevent authors from lawfully using or discussing their own research outside the editorial process, subject to applicable publication and research ethics obligations. They do, however, restrict unauthorized disclosure of information belonging to other participants in the confidential review process.

Double-Blind Review and Identity Protection

Research Articles submitted to TTS ordinarily undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers. The journal seeks to conceal author identities from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors during evaluation.

The following safeguards apply:

• Author Anonymization: Authors should remove identifying names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and unnecessary personal information from manuscripts prepared for double-blind review.
• Document Metadata: Authors and reviewers should take appropriate care to avoid accidental disclosure through file properties, tracked changes, document comments, or attached materials.
• Reviewer Identity Protection: Reviewer names and identifying details must not ordinarily be disclosed to authors or other unauthorized individuals under the journal's anonymous review model.
• No Deliberate Identification: Reviewers must not deliberately investigate an anonymous author's identity. Authors must not attempt to obtain confidential reviewer identities through improper means.
• Independent Communication: Reviewers should not contact authors directly concerning an active anonymous review. Questions and requests for clarification should be directed through the responsible editor.
• Appropriate Disclosure: Where identifying information becomes known and creates a material conflict, the relevant participant must inform the editorial office.

Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in specialized research fields or where authors have previously presented related work, published preprints, or used distinctive source collections. The journal seeks to maintain appropriate procedural safeguards even when identities may reasonably be inferred from publicly available information.

A possible identification of authorship does not automatically invalidate a review. The responsible editor evaluates whether the circumstances create an actual conflict of interest or otherwise compromise the independence of the assessment.

Protection of Unpublished Intellectual Contributions

Unpublished manuscripts often contain original intellectual contributions that have not yet entered the public scholarly record. Reviewers and editors may obtain access to such materials solely for legitimate evaluation and publication-related purposes.

The following activities are prohibited without appropriate authorization or another lawful basis:

• Using unpublished research findings, arguments, translations, or other original contributions for personal academic or professional advantage.
• Reproducing or circulating confidential manuscript passages, illustrations, source collections, or research data outside the authorized editorial process.
• Incorporating unpublished ideas or evidence into another research project without appropriate permission and attribution.
• Disclosing a submitted manuscript's central claims, unpublished discoveries, or review status to unauthorized third parties.
• Publicly citing an unpublished confidential submission or review report without appropriate authorization.
• Using protected materials obtained through reviewing to gain priority over the original researchers.

These obligations are particularly important in research involving previously unpublished manuscripts, archival discoveries, textual variants, new translations, fieldwork observations, religious documentation, and original philosophical interpretations.

Reviewers and editors may subsequently engage with research that becomes lawfully public, but they must continue to respect confidential information, unpublished contributions, copyright, and the circumstances under which they originally obtained access to the material.

Confidentiality Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are entrusted with unpublished scholarly materials for the limited purpose of independent academic evaluation. Acceptance of a review assignment includes responsibility for protecting those materials and following the journal's applicable ethical and confidentiality requirements.

Reviewers must:

• Access and use the assigned manuscript only for authorized scholarly evaluation.
• Protect manuscripts, supporting files, review reports, and confidential editorial communications against unauthorized disclosure.
• Avoid discussing the submission with colleagues, students, collaborators, or other individuals who have not been authorized to participate.
• Refrain from sharing reviewer access credentials, invitation links, downloaded manuscripts, or confidential review materials.
• Ensure that comments or uploaded files intended for authors do not unnecessarily reveal reviewer identity.
• Disclose relevant competing interests and limitations of expertise that may affect the independence or reliability of the review.
• Submit review reports and recommendations through the journal's designated online review workflow unless an alternative method has been expressly authorized.
• Notify the editorial office promptly of suspected unauthorized disclosure, accidental file sharing, compromised review access, or other confidentiality incidents.
• Continue observing confidentiality obligations after submitting the report, declining the invitation, or withdrawing from the assignment.

Reviewers must not delegate a review to another person without prior editorial permission. Where assistance is authorized, the additional participant must be subject to appropriate confidentiality requirements, and the responsible editor must be informed of the involvement.

Responsibilities of Editors and Authorized Publishing Personnel

Editors and authorized publishing personnel are responsible for administering confidential manuscript records and editorial communications in a manner consistent with their legitimate responsibilities.

Their obligations include:

• Access Limitation: Provide confidential manuscript information only to individuals who require it for authorized editorial, review, production, administrative, or integrity-related functions.
• Reviewer Protection: Maintain reviewer anonymity and protect confidential recommendations in accordance with the journal's review model.
• Secure Communication: Use appropriate editorial channels when transmitting review invitations, manuscript files, reports, and decisions.
• Editorial Independence: Keep scholarly decisions independent of inappropriate financial, personal, institutional, or commercial influence.
• Conflict Management: Disclose relevant competing interests and transfer responsibility to an appropriately independent editor when necessary.
• Responsible Recordkeeping: Maintain relevant manuscript and editorial records according to legitimate operational, ethical, legal, and publication recordkeeping needs.
• Incident Response: Assess credible reports of confidentiality breaches and undertake proportionate protective or corrective action.

Editors must not disclose confidential manuscript details or reviewer reports to unauthorized persons merely because a submission concerns a prominent scholar, institution, controversial subject, or public debate.

The publisher, Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG), supports the journal's authorized publishing and administrative activities. Access to confidential information by publisher personnel must remain proportionate to their legitimate responsibilities and must not be used to interfere improperly with scholarly editorial decisions.

Responsibilities of Authors During Peer Review

Authors participating in the editorial process must respect the confidentiality of reviewer identities, protected editorial communications, and other information entrusted to them through manuscript evaluation.

Authors are expected to:

• Prepare manuscripts appropriately for double-blind review where required.
• Avoid attempts to discover confidential reviewer identities or interfere with independent evaluation.
• Address reviewer comments through the responsible editor and the journal's official submission procedures.
• Refrain from publishing or circulating confidential reviewer reports in ways that violate applicable confidentiality obligations.
• Provide accurate explanations concerning prior dissemination, source materials, research ethics, authorship, and relevant competing interests.
• Report suspected manipulation, unauthorized disclosure, or other significant irregularities through appropriate editorial channels.

This policy does not prohibit authors from lawfully discussing or disseminating their own research, including prior versions or preprints where otherwise permitted. The confidentiality requirements primarily concern protected editorial information, reviewer communications, other participants' rights, and obligations arising from the journal's review procedures.

Artificial Intelligence and Confidential Editorial Materials

TTS recognizes that artificial intelligence and automated tools may assist certain research, language, and editorial activities. However, manuscript review involves unpublished intellectual property and confidential information that must not be exposed to unauthorized external services.

Confidentiality Requirement: Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, supplementary files, confidential review reports, identifiable submission information, or restricted editorial communications to external generative AI services without explicit editorial authorization and appropriate safeguards.

The following requirements apply:

• No Unauthorized Uploading: Confidential manuscript content and review materials must not be submitted to public or third-party AI platforms without appropriate authorization and safeguards.
• Independent Human Judgment: Reviewers and editors must personally assess scholarly quality, evidence, argumentation, source reliability, and research integrity.
• Accuracy and Verification: Any permitted AI-assisted output must be checked independently for factual accuracy, unsupported claims, fabricated citations, inaccurate translations, or misleading analysis.
• Disclosure: Substantive authorized AI assistance affecting the preparation of a scholarly review or editorial assessment must be disclosed to the responsible editor.
• Protection of Personal Information: Confidential author information, reviewer identities, protected research participant information, and other nonpublic personal data must not be disclosed to external AI services without an appropriate legal and editorial basis.
• No Delegation of Scholarly Responsibility: AI tools must not replace accountable human evaluation or independently determine an editorial recommendation or publication decision.

Assistance involving generic language improvement or technical tasks may be considered only when it does not disclose confidential material or otherwise violate applicable requirements. Authorized substantive use must remain transparent, and the reviewer or editor retains full responsibility for the resulting assessment.

Reviewers and editors should not assume that a widely available AI service provides sufficient confidentiality protection merely because it offers general privacy features or commercial assurances. The journal's authorization requirements remain applicable.

Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

Authors, reviewers, editors, and authorized personnel must disclose relevant interests or relationships that could materially influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their responsibilities in the editorial process.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Recent or current research collaboration, co-authorship, academic supervision, or close professional relationships.
• Personal, family, or adversarial relationships that may compromise independent judgment.
• Financial interests or institutional responsibilities materially connected with the manuscript's content or outcome.
• Direct participation in the research or preparation of the submitted manuscript.
• Other substantial interests creating a material risk of bias in scholarly evaluation or editorial decision-making.

Reviewers should disclose relevant conflicts before accepting an invitation or immediately upon discovering them. Editors should disclose conflicts affecting their handling of a submission and arrange appropriate reassignment or recusal where necessary.

A potential conflict does not automatically establish misconduct. The responsible editor must evaluate the nature and seriousness of the circumstances and determine whether disclosure, additional safeguards, reassignment, or recusal is appropriate.

Religious beliefs, philosophical perspectives, theoretical commitments, and legitimate academic disagreements do not independently constitute disqualifying conflicts of interest. The relevant concern is whether a specific interest or relationship materially compromises impartial scholarly judgment.

Ethical and Impartial Scholarly Evaluation

Peer review at TTS must be conducted according to the scholarly standards appropriate to the manuscript's discipline and research approach. Evaluations must address the work itself rather than the personal identity, status, reputation, or beliefs of its authors.

Ethical reviewing requires:

• Objective consideration of originality, scholarly contribution, research methods, evidence, argumentation, and relevance to the journal.
• Appropriate recognition of legitimate philosophical, historical, textual, empirical, and interdisciplinary research methods.
• Respectful and constructive presentation of criticisms, revision requests, and editorial recommendations.
• Avoidance of discrimination, personal attacks, abusive language, unjustified allegations, or inappropriate ideological pressure.
• Recognition of the distinction between demonstrable factual error and defensible scholarly disagreement.
• Avoidance of coercive citation requests, self-serving recommendations, or manipulation of scholarly recognition.

TTS welcomes scholarship that critically examines religious doctrines, philosophical traditions, historical claims, institutional practices, and cultural representations. Authors should not be penalized solely because their research presents a defensible interpretation that differs from the reviewer's own intellectual position.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not replace the responsibility of the authorized editor. Final decisions must reflect independent scholarly judgment and the journal's applicable policies.

Special Protection of Historical, Religious, and Cultural Materials

Manuscripts submitted to TTS may include unpublished classical text transcriptions, newly identified manuscripts, restricted archival materials, recordings of religious practices, community-specific knowledge, and other sensitive sources.

Reviewers and editors should exercise particular care when handling:

• Previously unpublished manuscripts, inscriptions, archival records, textual reconstructions, and related discoveries.
• Restricted religious texts, confidential ritual knowledge, or community-specific materials subject to legitimate access limitations.
• Interviews, participant observations, photographs, recordings, or other information involving identifiable living individuals.
• Modern translations, annotated editions, manuscript images, and other materials subject to copyright or separate permissions.
• Sensitive information whose disclosure could violate privacy, confidentiality, contractual restrictions, or applicable law.

The editorial process must not be used as a means of gaining unauthorized access to restricted collections or unpublished research resources. Reviewers and editors should not reproduce or retain such materials for purposes unrelated to the assigned editorial responsibility.

Appropriate confidentiality does not prohibit legitimate scholarly criticism or the independent verification of sources through authorized means. It requires that confidential materials be handled responsibly and that any necessary inquiry respect applicable research ethics and rights protections.

Confidentiality and Security of Editorial Records

TTS manages manuscript submissions, reviewer assignments, editorial decisions, and related communications through the journal's official online submission and review system. Participants must use the system responsibly and protect confidential information against unauthorized access or disclosure.

Participants are expected to observe the following practices:

• Account Security: Protect account credentials, invitation links, and access information from unauthorized persons.
• Authorized Access: Access manuscript and review records only when permitted by the relevant editorial assignment or legitimate administrative function.
• File Protection: Handle downloaded manuscripts, attachments, annotated documents, and review reports with appropriate security measures.
• Secure Submission: Use the designated online workflow for review comments, recommendations, and manuscript revisions unless the editorial office expressly authorizes an alternative.
• Data Minimization: Avoid unnecessary copying, downloading, retention, or circulation of confidential editorial information.
• Responsible Disposal: Remove unnecessary personal copies of confidential manuscript materials when the authorized purpose has ended, subject to legitimate recordkeeping obligations.
• Prompt Reporting: Notify the editorial office of suspected account compromise, unauthorized access, mistaken disclosure, or other relevant confidentiality incidents.

Individual reviewers should not retain manuscripts or review files for private research collections after their assignments have concluded unless an appropriate authorization or other legitimate basis exists. The journal may retain relevant editorial records for authorized administrative, publication integrity, legal, and scholarly recordkeeping purposes.

The journal does not prescribe a universal retention period for every category of editorial information through this policy. Record retention and disposal should reflect the nature of the information, legitimate operational requirements, applicable law, and any relevant research integrity obligations.

Third-Party Assistance and Authorized Consultation

Reviewers may occasionally require additional expertise to evaluate specialized linguistic, historical, methodological, or technical questions. Such assistance must not compromise the confidentiality or independence of the review process.

Before involving another person in an assigned review, the reviewer must:

1. Request Authorization: Inform the responsible editor of the proposed assistance and obtain permission before sharing confidential materials.
2. Explain the Purpose: Identify the scholarly or technical issue for which assistance is sought.
3. Disclose Relevant Interests: Provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed assistant's independence and relevant competing interests.
4. Protect Confidentiality: Ensure that any authorized assistant understands and complies with the applicable confidentiality and ethical requirements.
5. Maintain Accountability: Identify authorized assistance to the editor as appropriate and remain responsible for the submitted review.

Unauthorized collaboration, delegation to students or colleagues, and circulation of unpublished manuscripts to external specialists are prohibited. The responsible editor may instead assign an additional independent reviewer where specialized assessment is needed.

A reviewer may seek general scholarly information from publicly available sources without sharing confidential manuscript content, provided that doing so does not compromise the integrity or anonymity of the assigned review.

Suspected Confidentiality Breaches and Security Incidents

Participants who become aware of a suspected confidentiality breach, unauthorized disclosure, compromised account, or inappropriate use of editorial materials must notify the editorial office promptly.

Reportable incidents may include:

• Sending a confidential manuscript or review report to an unintended recipient.
• Unauthorized publication, distribution, or public disclosure of unpublished research.
• Loss or compromise of account credentials, private invitation links, or confidential review files.
• Unauthorized upload of confidential material to an external platform or AI service.
• Improper disclosure of reviewer identity or protected editorial information.
• Suspected appropriation or misuse of unpublished scholarly contributions.

Where safe and appropriate, the individual discovering the incident should stop the unauthorized activity, prevent further unnecessary disclosure, and preserve relevant information needed to understand what occurred. The individual should not conduct an unauthorized investigation or attempt to conceal the incident.

The editorial office may respond through the following measures:

1. Initial Assessment: Determine the nature of the reported incident, the information involved, and the potential consequences.
2. Protective Measures: Limit further unauthorized access or disclosure and seek appropriate technical or administrative assistance where necessary.
3. Relevant Notification: Consider whether affected individuals, authorized institutional contacts, the publisher, or other appropriate parties must be informed under applicable obligations.
4. Editorial Review: Evaluate whether the incident compromises reviewer independence, manuscript confidentiality, the fairness of the assessment, or the integrity of the publication process.
5. Corrective Action: Implement proportionate measures such as reviewer reassignment, access restriction, clarification, further investigation, or other appropriate responses.
6. Documentation: Record relevant findings and actions according to legitimate operational, ethical, and legal requirements.

The journal seeks to respond to reported incidents fairly and proportionately. An accidental disclosure and a deliberate misuse of confidential research may require different responses, depending on the evidence, consequences, and relevant obligations.

Allegations of Misconduct and Confidential Investigation

Credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated evidence, peer review manipulation, unauthorized use of unpublished work, undisclosed material conflicts, or other publication ethics violations may require further assessment.

The journal handles such matters through the appropriate procedures established in its Publication Ethics Policy. Confidentiality must be maintained to the extent reasonably possible while permitting fair assessment of the allegations and consideration of relevant evidence.

Ethical assessment may involve:

1. Receipt and Preliminary Assessment: Examine the concern and available supporting information to determine whether further inquiry is warranted.
2. Independent Handling: Identify relevant conflicts of interest and arrange appropriate independent consideration where necessary.
3. Request for Clarification: Seek explanations, documentation, or other relevant evidence from the individuals concerned, with an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.
4. Specialist or Institutional Consultation: Obtain independent scholarly or institutional assistance when the matter requires expertise or authority beyond the editorial office.
5. Editorial Determination: Evaluate the available evidence and determine whether further editorial action is justified.
6. Appropriate Follow-Up: Document relevant actions and implement proportionate editorial or post-publication measures where necessary.

Confidential information may need to be disclosed to qualified independent specialists, relevant institutions, legal advisers, or competent authorities where necessary and justified. Such disclosure should be limited to appropriate recipients and information relevant to the legitimate purpose, taking account of applicable legal requirements.

An allegation alone does not establish wrongdoing. Similarly, legitimate philosophical disagreement, disputed historical interpretation, or a good-faith methodological error does not automatically constitute research misconduct.

The journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other appropriate notices where warranted. The detailed standards and procedures are set out in the Publication Ethics Policy.

Confidentiality After Completion of Peer Review

Confidentiality obligations do not automatically expire when an editor issues a decision, a reviewer submits a report, or an article is subsequently published.

After completing an assignment, reviewers and other participants must continue to protect:

• Reviewer identities protected by the journal's double-blind review procedures.
• Confidential reviewer reports and internal editorial communications.
• Unpublished research content that has not been lawfully made public.
• Protected personal information and confidential research integrity records.
• Other information whose confidentiality remains necessary under applicable ethical or legal requirements.

Publication of an article makes the published content available under its applicable copyright and open-access terms. It does not automatically make the article's confidential review reports, internal deliberations, or reviewer identities public.

Reviewers may acknowledge general scholarly service where doing so is consistent with the journal's confidentiality requirements. They must not publicly identify a confidential manuscript, its review outcome, or the authors involved unless appropriate permission or another legitimate basis exists.

Any public disclosure of peer review information, including proposed acknowledgment of individual reviewers, must respect the journal's applicable review model, the relevant participants' rights, and the requirements of responsible scholarly publishing.

Complaints, Appeals, and Procedural Fairness

Authors, reviewers, and other relevant individuals may report concerns involving confidentiality, reviewer conduct, competing interests, improper disclosure, or the fairness of editorial procedures.

Complaints should identify the relevant submission or matter, describe the concern, and provide available supporting information. Allegations must be considered according to their substance and evidentiary basis rather than the identity or institutional status of the reporting party.

When a complaint concerns a particular editor, that individual should not be responsible for determining the outcome where the conflict materially compromises independence. Appropriate independent consideration may be arranged through the journal's editorial leadership or publisher.

Editorial appeals may be considered when a credible procedural irregularity, material factual error, unmanaged conflict of interest, or other substantive problem affected the fairness of a decision. An appeal does not automatically require the disclosure of reviewer identities or confidential review materials.

The journal seeks to balance confidentiality with procedural fairness, appropriate accountability, and the legitimate need to explain editorial decisions. Confidentiality should not be invoked to conceal misconduct or prevent necessary investigation under applicable procedures.

Related Policies and Ethical Guidance

This policy should be read together with the journal's related editorial and publication requirements:

• Reviewer Guidelines — Reviewer eligibility, scholarly assessment standards, review preparation, recommendations, and submission procedures.
• Peer Review Policy — Double-blind review, editorial independence, reviewer selection, and final decision-making authority.
• Publication Ethics — Academic integrity, conflicts of interest, misconduct assessment, complaints, and post-publication actions.
• Author Ethical Responsibilities — Originality, authorship, disclosures, confidential materials, and research ethics.
• Plagiarism & Similarity Screening — Originality, textual reuse, source attribution, and editorial verification.
• Copyright & Licensing — Author rights, third-party materials, and lawful reuse of scholarly publications.
• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers — International guidance on confidentiality, independence, competing interests, and responsible peer review.
• COPE Core Practices — General publication ethics principles and editorial responsibilities.

The journal's ethical framework is informed by recognized scholarly publishing guidance. Reference to COPE resources does not, by itself, constitute a claim of formal COPE membership, accreditation, endorsement, or independent certification.

Reporting Confidentiality and Ethical Concerns

Authors, reviewers, editorial participants, and other interested parties may report credible confidentiality concerns, conflicts of interest, unauthorized disclosures, suspected misconduct, or related editorial irregularities to the TTS Editorial Office.

Reports should provide, where reasonably available:

• Identification of the relevant manuscript, submission, review assignment, or publication.
• A clear description of the suspected incident, conflict, disclosure, or ethical concern.
• Relevant supporting evidence or information necessary to understand the circumstances.
• Information concerning any immediate risk of further unauthorized disclosure, where applicable.

Reports should avoid unnecessarily reproducing or circulating the confidential materials at issue. The editorial office may request additional documentation through an appropriate communication channel when necessary.

The editorial email address is intended for confidentiality concerns, ethical reports, procedural questions, conflicts of interest, and administrative or technical assistance. Formal review reports and recommendations should ordinarily be submitted through the journal's official online review system unless the editorial office expressly authorizes another procedure.