Azimuth – Code of Ethics

AZIMUTH. Philosophical Coordinates in Modern and Contemporary Age aspires to select and publish, through double-blind peer review, the highest quality research in philosophy. In order to achieve this goal, the entire peer review and publication process should be thorough, objective and fair. Journal reputation depends heavily on the trust by all stakeholders in the fairness of the peer review and publication process. This code of ethics, outlining guidelines for good behavior for Authors, Editors and Reviewers, is based on COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines and it is designed to be a comprehensive policy for peer review and publication ethics in Azimuth.


Originality: When an Author submits a manuscript to AZIMUTH, the manuscript must be an original work.

Authors must not submit the same work, in whole or in part, to two places of publication at the same time, or at any time while the manuscript is under review at AZIMUTH. It is also improper for an Author to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research to more than one place of publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. Thus, an Author may not submit to AZIMUTH a work that is in whole or in part under review elsewhere, nor submit to another publication outlet a work that is in whole or in part under review at AZIMUTH.

The manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, either in whole (including book chapters) or in part (including paragraphs of text or exhibits), whether in English or another language.

If the manuscript contains materials that overlap with work that is previously published, that is in press, or that is under consideration for publication elsewhere, the Author must cite this work in the manuscript. The Author must also inform AZIMUTH Editorial Board of the related work and, if requested, send the manuscript to the Editor.

Authors must explicitly cite their own earlier work and ideas, even when the work or ideas are not quoted verbatim or paraphrased in the manuscript. If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material should be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited in a way that does not compromise the double-blind review process.

While self-citation is encouraged, Authors should avoid excessively citing their earlier works in order to inflate their citation count. Authors should also avoid self-citation that might violate the double-blind review process.

Authors should not submit a manuscript to AZIMUTH that was previously submitted to AZIMUTH, sent out for review, and rejected after review by a AZIMUTH Editor. If an earlier version was previously rejected by AZIMUTH, and the Author wishes to submit a revised version for review, this fact and the justification for resubmission should be clearly communicated by the Author to AZIMUTH Editor in Chief at the time of submission. Only under rare circumstances will a second submission be permissible.

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism: All work in the manuscript should be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material in all their forms.

Authors are expected to explicitly cite others’ work and ideas, even if the work or ideas are not quoted verbatim or paraphrased. This standard applies whether the previous work is published, unpublished, or electronically available. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Redundancy (or “self-plagiarism”) is unacceptable publishing behavior. Redundancy can occur in at least two ways: (1) Authors recycle portions of their previous writings by using identical or nearly identical sentences or paragraphs from earlier writings in subsequent research papers, without quotation or acknowledgement; or (2) Authors create multiple papers that are slight variations on each other, which are submitted for publication in different journals but without acknowledgement of the other papers. Since publication decisions are influenced by the novelty and innovativeness of manuscripts, such deception is inappropriate and unethical.

Authors should minimize their recycling of previous writings. If recycling is unavoidable, the Author should inform the Editor at the time of submission and reference the previous writings in the manuscript. Such self-referencing should be worded carefully so as to avoid compromising the double-blind review process.

If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material must be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited.

Cases of plagiarism and redundancy will be handled according to the practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics. AZIMUTH reserves the right to evaluate issues of plagiarism and redundancy on a case-by-case basis.

Conflicts of Interest: Authors should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest throughout the research process. A conflict of interest is some fact known to a participant in the publication process that if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived (or an Author, Reviewer, or Editor feel defensive). Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors. The perception of a conflict of interest is nearly as important as an actual conflict, since both erode trust.

Authors should disclose in the manuscript’s Acknowledgements any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Authors may withhold the names of specific sponsors if they provide an adequate and full description of the sponsor’s nature and interest.

Examples of possible conflicts of interest include: (1) one of the Authors is at the same institution as the nominated Editor or Reviewer; (2) one of the Authors was a member of the Editor or Reviewer’s dissertation committee, or vice versa; or (3) one of the Authors, and the Editor or Reviewer, are currently Co-Authors on another manuscript or have been Co-Authors on a manuscript within the past two years.

Double-Blind Review: AZIMUTH follows a double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the manuscript should not include any self-revealing information that would identify the Author to a Reviewer.

Authors should not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential Reviewers.

Accuracy: Authors have the ultimate responsibility for all materials included in a manuscript submitted to AZIMUTH. Authors are obligated to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research.

Authors should report their findings fully and should not omit data that are relevant within the context of the research question(s). Results should be reported whether they support or contradict expected outcomes. Authors should take particular care to present relevant qualifications to their research or to the findings and interpretations of them.

If an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own work, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the Author to promptly retract or correct the manuscript or provide evidence to the Editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Co-Authorship: All Co-Authors of papers should have made significant contributions to the work and share accountability for the results. Authorship and credit should be shared in proportion to the various parties’ contributions. Authors should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. Other contributions should be cited in the manuscript’s Acknowledgements or an endnote.

The Corresponding Author who submits a manuscript to AZIMUTH should have sent all living Co-Authors a draft and obtained their assent to submission and publication.

Copyright Law: Authors should check their manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g., where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications) and secure the necessary permissions before submission.

Authors should avoid anything in the text of the manuscript that might be actionable, such as defamation. Authors should avoid using sexist and biased language that could be interpreted as denigrating to ethnic or other groups.

Timeliness: Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given, the Author should contact AZIMUTH Managin Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or withdrawal from the review process should be chosen.

Post publication: AZIMUTH holds the copyright to all published articles.

AZIMUTH authors must ask for permission to publish their article (or a selection from the article) elsewhere, such as a AZIMUTH article later appearing as a book chapter or as a translation.


Independence: AZIMUTH Editors must maintain their editorial independence and work to ensure that Authors have editorial freedom. Responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors. Doing so normally entails advice from Reviewers; however, manuscripts that Editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.

Unbiased: Editors should exercise their position of privilege in a confidential, unbiased, prompt, constructive and sensitive manner. Editors have the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits. Editors should operate without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.

Conflict of Interest: Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one. For example:

To avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor should not publish in the Journal except for materials that are clearly identifiable or identified as non-refereed or single-blind refereed. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by a AZIMUTH Editor and submitted to AZIMUTH should be delegated by AZIMUTH Editor-in-Chief to another qualified person, such as a past Editor of the Journal or a member of AZIMUTH Consulting Editors Board. Editorial consideration of the manuscript in any way or form by the Author-Editor is never acceptable.

Editors should excuse themselves from considering a manuscript in which they have a real or potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, financial or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript. Examples of connections that represent possible Editor-Author conflicts of interest include: (1) the Editor and Author are both employed by the same institution; (2) the Editor was a member of the Author’s dissertation committee, or vice versa; or (3) the Author and Editor are currently Co-Authors on another manuscript or have been Co-Authors on a manuscript within the past two years.

Double-Blind Review: AZIMUTH follows a double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Where articles appear in the Journal that were not double-blind reviewed, the standard of review should be clearly stated in the printed Acknowledgements accompanying the article. The level of review for an invited work published in the Journal should be stated in the Acknowledgements.

Confidentiality: Editors and their editorial staff including student workers shall not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than Reviewers and Authors. Office procedures should be in place to maintain confidentiality of the review process. JIBS Editors are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind review process and not divulge any information that might identify Authors to Reviewers or vice versa. The anonymity of Reviewers can only be lifted if Editors receive permission from Reviewers to reveal their identities. Editors should ensure that their staff members conform to this practice. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Review Quality: Normally, two Reviewers should be invited to comment on a manuscript, but a minimum of two Reviewers is acceptable. The Editor should routinely assess all reviews for quality. In rare circumstances, an Editor may edit a review before sending it to an Author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the Reviewer) or not send the review to the Author if it is not constructive or appropriate. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics should be periodically assessed by AZIMUTH Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal performance.

Timeliness: Editors should take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from Authors about the status of a review.

Decision Quality: Editors have a responsibility to provide the Author with an explanation of the editorial decision on a manuscript. Editors should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewer comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter, without explanation, attached to a set of reviewer comments.

Editors have a responsibility to discourage authors from “gaming” activities designed to either inflate their own citations or the journal’s citations, and editors should not engage in such “gaming” activities themselves on behalf of JIBS or any other journal.

Accuracy: An Editor presented with convincing evidence by a Reviewer that the substance or conclusion of an unpublished manuscript is erroneous should promptly inform the Author. If similar evidence is presented for a published manuscript, the Editor should ensure prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate.

Authority: AZIMUTH Editor-in-Chief must have ultimate authority and responsibility for the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief should respect the Journal’s constituents (readers, Authors, Reviewers, Editors, editorial staff and publisher), and work to ensure the honesty and integrity of the Journal’s contents and continuous improvement in journal quality. The Editor-in-Chief should select the members of the editorial team, including an Editorial Review Board; outline the rights and responsibilities of these individuals; and regularly assess their performance. The Editor-in-Chief should develop a strategy plan for the future of the Journal, including facilitating transition to the next editorial team.

Performance: The Editor-in-Chief should develop performance metrics for the Journal. The Journal should publish annual reports of acceptance rates, publication intervals, percentage of submissions sent out for external peer review, and other performance data. Performance measures should be used to assess changes in peer review and publication processes that might improve Journal performance.


Reciprocity: Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to AZIMUTH are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.

Right of Refusal: Refusals to review a manuscript are from time to time necessary. For example, a Reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest. If asked to review a manuscript they have previously reviewed, Reviewers should make that prior review known to the AZIMUTH Editor, unless it is clear that they are being asked to provide a reappraisal.

Double-Blind Review: AZIMUTH has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.

Conflict of Interest: Normally, Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, financial, institutional, personal, or other relationships or connections with any of the companies, institutions, or people connected to the papers. Reviewers who might have a conflict of interest on a particular manuscript should reveal that conflict to the Editor, who will then determine their appropriate level of involvement. Note that under the double-blind review process, since Reviewers do not know Authors, Reviewers are unlikely to be aware of and are therefore not bound by conflicts of interest involving Authors. If Reviewers do become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the Editor.

Unbiased: Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.

Confidentiality: Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the AZIMUTH Editor, nor should they discuss any information from the manuscript without permission. If Reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the Journal that they may do so.

Accuracy: In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the Author(s), Reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with the Author in terms of their concerns about the manuscript. Reviewers should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately; that is, they should provide sufficient detail to the Author to justify their recommendation to the Editor.

Timeliness: Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the Managing Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen..