PUBLICATION ETHICS STATEMENT

The Editorial Team of the MEΘEXIS Journal of Research in Values and Spirituality is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process. Conformance to standards of ethical behaviour is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (COI)

Authors are required to disclose all potential conflicts of interest in a dedicated section of the manuscript. This includes relationships extending beyond direct funding for the specific work. Failure to disclose can lead to post-publication corrections or retractions if the undisclosed conflict of interest is deemed to have biased the interpretation, recommendations, or conclusions. Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to confirm a chain of reasoning or experimental result. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original and that any work and/or words of others have been appropriately acknowledged. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors must recuse themselves from decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., relationships with authors or competing interests). The journal is transferring handling to another editor in such cases. Editors are also responsible for ensuring conflict of interest disclosures are published and for pursuing undisclosed conflicts of interest. Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable measures in response to ethical complaints regarding a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity (e.g., close collaboration, competition, or personal ties with the authors). They should recuse themselves if a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers are prohibited from using knowledge of the manuscript for personal gain before publication. Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them to improve the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

The Publisher will respond to alleged or proven cases of research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism in close collaboration with the editors. The publisher will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the situation and, if necessary, amend the article in question. This may include the publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

CONTRIBUTORSHIP

MEΘEXIS Journal encourages detailed statements listing each author's specific roles to avoid ambiguity. "Gift," "ghost," or "guest" authorship (honorary or omitted authors) is unethical.

DISPUTES

MEΘEXIS Journal do not arbitrate authorship disputes (this is the authors' responsibility, often involving institutions). Changes made after submission require the agreement of all authors. Post-publication changes require a correction notice.

AUTHORSHIP

MEΘEXIS Journal Policy emphasizes accountability, transparency, and credit for substantial contributions:

  • Substantial contributions to conception, analysis, and interpretation.
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
  • Final approval of the version to be published.
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring questions related to accuracy/integrity are investigated and resolved.

All four criteria must be met. AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) cannot be authors as they lack accountability.

PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is defined as unacknowledged use of others' work (text, data, ideas, or images) and is unacceptable in all forms (literal copying, paraphrasing without attribution, self-plagiarism/text recycling).

Detection and Prevention: MEΘEXIS Journal use tools like Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) to screen submissions. Authors must ensure originality and proper citation/quotation. Self-plagiarism (redundant/duplicate publication) is prohibited without disclosure and justification (e.g., translations or expansions with permission).

Overall Similarity Index: The Turnitin total similarity score should not exceed 10%. This threshold ensures the originality of the submission while allowing for legitimate similarities, such as citations and commonly used phrases. Excluded Material: Direct quotations, references, and bibliographic entries may be excluded from the similarity index, provided they are appropriately cited.

AI-Generated Content: The submission should reflect original human scholarship. Articles flagged with AI-generated content above 10% will be subject to further scrutiny by the editorial board.

Handling Cases:

DISCLAIMER

By submitting their article for evaluation to the journal, the authors express their consent for it to be published in the event that it successfully passes the peer-review process and is accepted. The submission of the article implies the authors' acceptance of the journal's editorial and publication policies.

POST-PUBLICATION CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS

A. Correction

  • When Used: Honest errors or minor issues that do not invalidate findings.
  • Key Features: Linked to original article; explains changes; published promptly.
  • Examples of Triggers: Author errors (corrigendum) or publisher errors (erratum); minor plagiarism fixed by attribution.

B. Expression of Concern

  • When Used: An interim notice is issued when concerns are serious but unresolved.
  • Key Features: Alerts readers; linked bidirectionally; may be temporary or permanent.
  • Examples of Triggers: Suspected misconduct under institutional review; undisclosed major COI.

C. Retraction

  • When Used: Findings of unreliable or unethical practices invalidate the article.
  • Key Features: Clearly labeled "Retraction"; linked to original; remains accessible with watermark; states reason (without defaming individuals). Not removal—article stays online.
  • Examples of Triggers: Fabrication/falsification, major plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, compromised peer review, and major undisclosed conflicts of interest biasing results. Authorship disputes alone usually do not warrant retraction.