Ethical Principles

Sharia, Philosophy and Ethics is firmly committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct in the process of scholarly publishing. The journal adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

All parties involved in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff, and publisher—are expected to fully comply with the ethical guidelines presented below. These principles ensure that our publication practices are fair, responsible, and transparent, and that published research contributes meaningfully to academic discourse and public knowledge.

1. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting their work to Sharia, Philosophy and Ethics are required to:

1.1. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their manuscript is entirely original. Proper citations and references must be provided for all sources used, including paraphrased ideas. Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, verbatim copying, or duplication of previously published work, is strictly prohibited. All manuscripts are screened using iThenticate plagiarism detection software.

1.2. Authorship Criteria

Only individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study should be listed as authors. All contributors must be listed appropriately. Individuals who provided only technical help, writing assistance, or general support should be acknowledged in a separate section.

All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission to the journal. Any changes in authorship (addition, deletion, or reordering) must be approved by all listed authors and communicated in writing.

1.3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submissions

Manuscripts submitted to Sharia, Philosophy and Ethics must not be under consideration elsewhere or previously published. Redundant or duplicate publication, or submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, is unethical and unacceptable.

1.4. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Authors are required to disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that might constitute a conflict of interest. These include funding sources, institutional affiliations, or any arrangement that could potentially influence the results or interpretation of the research.

1.5. Data Integrity and Reproducibility

Authors must ensure that data presented in the manuscript are accurate and properly collected. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data is a serious ethical breach. If data are made available (e.g., for qualitative studies or philosophical analysis), appropriate anonymization and ethical safeguards must be implemented.

1.6. Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite influential publications relevant to the topic of their article and must not omit citations to avoid critique or inflate the originality of their findings.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal. Reviewers are expected to:

2.1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript or any associated materials outside the review process.

2.2. Objectivity and Constructive Criticism

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear, evidence-based arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should aim to provide constructive feedback that helps improve the quality of the manuscript.

2.3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality, such as collaboration with the author(s), competition, or financial interests. If such conflicts exist, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review.

2.4. Competence and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only if they have sufficient expertise in the subject area. They should complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe. If delays are unavoidable, the editor should be informed promptly.

2.5. Identification of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected ethical issues, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undeclared conflicts of interest, or errors in data interpretation, to the editorial office immediately.

3. Responsibilities of Editors

The editorial team of Sharia, Philosophy and Ethics is responsible for the overall integrity of the editorial process. Editors must:

3.1. Fair and Unbiased Decision-Making

Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope—regardless of the author’s gender, ethnicity, nationality, religious belief, institutional affiliation, or political views.

3.2. Confidentiality

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and associated data. They may not disclose information to anyone outside the editorial team and the assigned reviewers.

3.3. Conflict of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest (e.g., personal, academic, or financial). In such cases, another qualified editor will be assigned.

3.4. Publication Decisions

Editors have full responsibility for deciding which articles are accepted or rejected. Their decisions are based on the manuscript’s quality, originality, reviewer feedback, and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. All accepted articles must have undergone peer review and final approval by the editorial board.

3.5. Handling Misconduct

Editors are responsible for taking appropriate action when ethical concerns arise. This may include retraction, issuing corrections, contacting authors’ institutions, or referring to COPE guidelines for further action.

4. Ethical Oversight of Research

The journal encourages authors to adhere to ethical standards in the conduct of research, including the treatment of human subjects, confidentiality, informed consent, and data privacy. While Sharia, Philosophy and Ethics is primarily focused on theoretical and textual analysis, empirical and qualitative studies involving participants must comply with ethical approval requirements.

5. Allegations of Misconduct

When allegations of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, authorship manipulation, or data falsification) are made, the editorial team will follow a structured process:

  1. A preliminary investigation will be conducted confidentially.

  2. If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate actions will be taken: issuing retractions, notifying institutions, or banning future submissions.

  3. Authors will be given an opportunity to respond to allegations.

The journal follows COPE’s Flowcharts for Dealing with Publication Misconduct in all such cases.

6. Retraction and Correction Policy

Sharia, Philosophy and Ethics is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. The journal may issue:

  • Retractions, for articles found to contain serious ethical or scientific issues (e.g., plagiarism, fabricated data, or major errors).

  • Corrigenda, to correct errors made by authors.

  • Errata, to correct errors introduced by the journal in the publication process.

All corrections and retractions will be clearly marked and linked to the original article.

7. Post-Publication Discussions and Appeals

The journal welcomes scholarly dialogue and debate. Readers or authors may contact the editorial office to raise concerns or request clarification about published content. Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written explanation with supporting documentation. Appeals will be reviewed independently by the editorial board.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Authors, reviewers, and editors are discouraged from using AI-based text generation tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to create or evaluate scholarly content unless transparently disclosed. If used, the role of such tools must be clearly explained, and responsibility for the final content remains entirely with the human authors or reviewers.

Transparency Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

In light of the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic writing, translation, data analysis, and editorial processes, our journal is committed to ensuring full transparency and ethical responsibility in the use of such technologies throughout the submission, peer review, and publication processes.

To uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and align with the recommendations of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), our journal has adopted the following principles regarding the use of AI:

  1. Transparent and Responsible Use: Authors are required to clearly disclose any use of AI tools—such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, DeepL, or others—at any stage of manuscript preparation (e.g., literature review, results description, discussion writing, language editing, or translation). This disclosure should appear in the acknowledgments section or a footnote on the title page.

  2. AI Tools Cannot Be Authors: According to the WAME guidelines, AI tools cannot be credited as authors of scientific manuscripts. These tools do not meet authorship criteria because they lack legal responsibility and the ability to consent to publication or accountability for the content.

  3. Human Oversight and Validation: All AI-generated content must be critically reviewed, edited, and validated by human authors. The final responsibility for the accuracy, coherence, and integrity of the manuscript lies solely with the human contributors.

  4. Use in Peer Review: Peer reviewers using AI tools to assist with manuscript evaluation must ensure they do not share confidential information with such tools. Any AI use during review must comply with confidentiality and data protection standards.

  5. Misuse and Ethical Violations: The inappropriate use of AI—such as generating fabricated content, falsifying data, or committing plagiarism—will be treated as a serious ethical violation and subject to disciplinary action in accordance with publication ethics.

  6. Policy Review and Updates: This policy will be reviewed regularly in response to evolving AI technologies and ethical considerations. Any updates will be published on the journal’s official website.

Our journal is committed to transparency, integrity, and accountability in scientific publishing. We fully adhere to the WAME statement entitled “Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications.”

For the complete text of WAME’s recommendations, please visit:
https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106