1. Good Practice Guidelines for Publication

Journal of Teleological Science (JTS) observes good editorial practices and the deontological standards of academic and scientific journal publishing according to accepted national standards and international protocols.

The editorial process is recorded in OJS. Articles follow the peer review policy, which defines double anonymity, the stages and applicable procedures, including those for invited articles and thematic collections.

The journal prevents and monitors institutional and geographical concentration among authors and promotes diversity, in accordance with the criteria and procedures of its peer review policy.

JTS does not condone cross-publication of productions from specific, identified institutions or graduate programs.

JTS does not publish articles with cross-citation or self-citation at levels that are considered excessive or predatory to artificially increase citations and impact factors.

2. Good Practice Guidelines for Authors

Authors must submit unpublished articles, i.e. not previously published in any other medium (chapter, book, magazine, blog, etc.).

Research involving human participants, non-public personal information or other matters subject to ethical oversight must comply with the rules applicable to its location and nature. Where required, ethical approval and consent must be reported in the manuscript; any exemption must be justified under the relevant rules. Purely theoretical, bibliographic or documentary studies must report relevant ethical issues, where any arise, without presuming a universal obligation to submit to an ethics committee.

Authors are forbidden to use inaccurate, imprecise, or dubious statements. Proper citation of the sources referred to in the scientific article is mandatory, and copying and/or plagiarism is expressly forbidden under the terms of the current legislation.

During the evaluation and editorial review process, the authors may be required to provide primary and secondary sources for their article under the penalty of not having it approved. Simultaneous submission of the article to another journal is expressly forbidden.

Articles sent to more than one journal will be rejected.

The submission must be made exclusively by one of the (co)authors through their own OJS account, with the agreement of all authors. Submissions by third parties who are not authors, including agencies, intermediaries or service providers, are not permitted. The submitting author must register all authors and coauthors, check their metadata and identify the corresponding author, who will communicate with the journal.

All authors and coauthors must be identified at initial submission. New authors or coauthors may not be added once peer review begins. Until copyediting is completed, corrections to the details of authors already identified may be requested, subject to editorial verification; this does not authorize adding people to the authorship.

Changes to author order or declared contributions require justification and the agreement of those involved. Omissions, inappropriate authorship and disputes will be investigated under the ethics policy and may prevent the submission from proceeding. After publication, errors will be addressed through correction or retraction procedures, without routine reopening of the authorship registration.

3. Good Practice Guidelines for Editors and Reviewers

The editors are responsible for the final decision on whether or not to approve articles published in JTS.

The editor decides on the basis of the reasoning in the reports, authors’ responses to editorial requests, the journal’s aims and scope and its policies, without discrimination. Reports inform the decision and do not guarantee publication.

Editors, Editorial Board members, and other collaborators are bound by the external secrecy rule, and information about the submission of scientific articles must be preserved.

The technical evaluation, the written opinion, and the blind revision of the scientific article by the collaborator represent material assistance to the editors, and the revision process is essential to the quality of the publication.

4. Editorial and authorship duties

4.1 Duties of Editors

Publication decision: the editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor is guided by the policies decided by the Editorial Board. These policies must comply with current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In making decisions, the editor may consult the Editorial Board and the referees.
 Transparency and respect: the editor shall evaluate submitted manuscripts without regard to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy

Confidentiality: the editor and other members of the editorial team must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript, except to the referees and editorial advisors.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: The editor should not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their research without the author's express written consent. The editor should decline to evaluate manuscripts in which he or she has conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the manuscripts.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations: the editor should take appropriate action when ethical complaints have been made regarding a submitted manuscript or published article.

4.2 Duties of the Evaluators

Contribution to editorial decisions: the review of the reviewers assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the article.
 Timeliness: any article reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the article or knows that it will be impossible to read it immediately should notify the editor immediately.

Confidentiality: papers received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others.

Objectivity standards: Opinions should be conducted objectively. The referees should express their points of view clearly and supported by arguments.

On sources: referees should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The reviewer should bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: privileged information or ideas obtained by the reviewer through reading the manuscripts should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain. The referee should not evaluate manuscripts in which he/she has conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions linked to the manuscripts.

4.3 Authors' duties

Originality and plagiarism: authors must ensure that works are entirely original and if they use the work and/or texts of others that this is properly cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical editorial behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple or redundant publications: an author should not publish manuscripts that essentially
describe the same research in more than one journal. Publishing the same article in more than one journal without informing the editors and obtaining their consent constitutes unethical editorial behavior and is unacceptable.

About sources: the work of other authors should always be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that were important in determining the nature of the work reported. Information obtained privately, such as in a conversation, correspondence, or discussion with a third party, should not be used or reported without the explicit written permission of the source. Information obtained through confidential services, such as manuscript referees or grant applications, should not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship is limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, development, analysis or interpretation of the work and take responsibility for their contribution. All authors must approve the final version and agree to submission. Contributions that do not justify authorship must be acknowledged, with the contributors’ permission. The corresponding author is responsible for identifying all co-authors and communicating with the journal.

Assignment of a CRediT role does not, by itself, confer authorship. Funding, administrative support or technical services alone do not justify authorship. Contributions that do not meet the authorship criteria must be acknowledged with the permission of those involved. Authorship and contributions (CRediT)

Authors must disclose funding and financial, personal, professional or institutional interests that may influence the work or its assessment. Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when their impartiality is compromised. Independent handling of articles by editors, board members and guest editors follows the peer review policy. Authors’ disclosures must also follow the author guidelines.

5. Data, materials and critical examination

Authors must identify sources, methods and materials in sufficient detail to allow critical examination of the argument and, where applicable, reproduction of the procedures. The manuscript must state the availability of data and materials supporting the results, by reference to public sources, a repository or a means of access. Restrictions arising from confidentiality, participant protection or third-party rights must be justified. The journal may request access for assessment, respecting these limits. Authors must report significant errors they discover and cooperate with their investigation and correction.

6. Integrity and intellectual property

Plagiarism, citation manipulation and fabrication or falsification of data, sources, documents or results are incompatible with editorial integrity. Self-citations and citations to the journal must be academically relevant and must not be demanded to increase indicators. Suspicions are examined by people in the light of the evidence and context, without automatic decisions based on a similarity percentage. Similarity assessment follows the plagiarism policy; investigations and editorial measures follow the procedures in this ethics policy.

Authors must respect copyright and obtain necessary permissions for third-party materials. Copyright ownership and the conditions for using articles follow the journal’s copyright and licensing policy. Materials subject to separate conditions must be identified.

7. Complaints, investigations and reconsideration

Substantiated complaints and allegations must be sent to the editorial contact. The editor records the matter, checks for conflicts of interest, examines the evidence and seeks responses from the parties where appropriate, allowing a reasonable time to respond. If the editor has a conflict of interest, an independent person is assigned to handle the matter. The reasoned decision is recorded and communicated to the parties.

The editor distinguishes allegations from established facts and gives those involved an opportunity to provide explanations before a decision, where appropriate. The journal may request documents and explanations and refer the matter to the responsible institution when investigation exceeds its remit. Information is shared only with those who need to participate in the investigation. Evidence, responses, decisions and communications are retained in the editorial system or a restricted editorial archive.

A reasoned request for reconsideration may be submitted on grounds of factual or procedural error, or relevant evidence not previously considered. Requests must be sent to the editorial contact and assessed by a person without conflicts of interest. If a request concerns the editor’s conduct or impartiality, a non-conflicted board member will designate an independent person to handle it. The reasoned response will be recorded and communicated to the requester. Submitting a request does not guarantee a change in the decision.

8. Post-publication discussion

Substantiated comments on published articles may be sent through the editorial contact, identifying the article and the issues raised. The editor assesses their relevance and may seek a response from the authors. Where the discussion warrants public communication, the journal may publish a comment and response linked to the article, subject to editorial assessment, or take appropriate corrective measures.

9. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

A correction is used when an error can be remedied without invalidating the results or central argument. An expression of concern may alert readers to a serious unresolved doubt. Retraction is considered when there is sufficient evidence that the content is unreliable or involves a serious breach of integrity. Notices identify the article, the measure, its reasons and the date, and remain publicly linked to the original record. Articles are not routinely removed; exceptional situations follow legal obligations and the protection of the rights involved. Authors are informed and may provide explanations; disagreement does not prevent a reasoned editorial measure.

10. References and related policies

This policy draws on COPE’s Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME), applied to the journal’s procedures. Reference to this guidance does not imply COPE membership.

Editorial policies · Author guidelines · Peer review · Copyright and licence · Plagiarism · AI/LLM use · Contact

Authorship and contributions (CRediT)

Revised: 17 October 2026.