• Revised: January 1, 2025

Episteme is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in academic publishing. This policy ensures the integrity, transparency, and accountability of all research published in the journal.

1. Purpose

This policy aims to uphold ethical rigor in research and publication by preventing violations of human dignity, public and private ethical standards, and scholarly integrity. It also seeks to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability throughout the submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, and publication processes.

2. Research Ethics for Authors

• 1. Academic Integrity
  Authors must adhere to ethical standards throughout the research process, from idea generation to publication. This includes proper citation, responsible use of funding, accurate presentation of research findings, and fair treatment of research participants.
• 2. Prohibition of Misconduct
  Research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, manipulation, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, and other forms of unethical research practice, is strictly prohibited.
• 3. Obligation to Report Misconduct
  If an author becomes aware of ethical violations related to a submitted or published manuscript, they must promptly report them to the Editorial Board through appropriate channels.
• 4. Conflict of Interest Disclosure
  Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their research, interpretation, or publication process. Such conflicts may include financial, institutional, personal, academic, or professional relationships.
• 5. Use of Generative AI Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, as they cannot take responsibility for the content, integrity, and scholarly accountability of a manuscript. Authors who use generative AI tools in the preparation of a manuscript, including for writing assistance, translation, editing, data organization, or image generation, must disclose the use of such tools where appropriate. Human authors remain fully responsible for verifying the accuracy, originality, citations, data, interpretations, and conclusions of the submitted work. Any use of generative AI must not violate research ethics, copyright, privacy, confidentiality, or the standards of academic integrity required by the journal.

3. Openness and Data Sharing

• 1. Authors are encouraged to promote open research practices while respecting confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and ethical restrictions.
• 2. Upon reasonable request, authors should share research data within the limits of intellectual property rights, privacy protection, contractual obligations, and applicable ethical regulations.
• 3. When data cannot be shared due to legal, ethical, or confidentiality reasons, authors should clearly state the reason.

4. Authorship and Contributions

• 1. All listed authors must have made significant scholarly contributions to the research and must be accountable for its content.
• 2. Ghost authorship, honorary authorship, and guest authorship are strictly prohibited.
• 3. Individuals who contributed indirectly to the research, such as through technical assistance, editorial support, funding acquisition, or administrative help, should be acknowledged appropriately.
• 4. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission and publication.

5. Compliance with Institutional and Legal Guidelines

• 1. Authors must comply with all legal, institutional, and funding body regulations relevant to their research.
• 2. The journal expects authors to follow the ethical guidelines established by regulatory institutions, academic societies, professional organizations, and research ethics bodies.
• 3. If research requires approval from an Institutional Review Board or an equivalent ethics review body, authors must obtain such approval before conducting the research and provide relevant information when requested by the journal.

6. Peer Review Policy and Review Regulations

• 1. Peer Review Process
  Epistémè operates a double-blind peer review system to ensure the fairness, objectivity, and academic quality of all submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
• 2. Reviewer Selection
  Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board on the basis of their academic expertise, research field, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two qualified reviewers. If necessary, additional reviewers may be appointed to ensure a fair and rigorous evaluation.
• 3. Review Criteria
  Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria: originality, academic contribution, theoretical and methodological soundness, relevance to the scope of the journal, clarity of argument, adequacy of references, ethical compliance, and overall scholarly quality.
• 4. Review Decisions
  Based on the reviewers’ reports and the Editorial Board’s deliberation, one of the following decisions may be made: a. Accept, b. Accept with minor revisions, c. Revise and resubmit, d. Reject. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations and the journal’s editorial standards.
• 5. Review of Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
  When a manuscript is submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, an editorial board member, a journal officer, an officer of the publishing institution, or any person who may have a conflict of interest with the journal’s editorial process, the individual concerned is excluded from all stages of the review and decision-making process.
• 6. Conflict of Interest in Peer Review
  Reviewers must decline the review invitation if they have any conflict of interest with the author, the manuscript, the research topic, or the institution involved. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must immediately notify the Editorial Board and withdraw from the review.
• 7. Confidentiality of Review Materials
  Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, and all related materials as confidential. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for personal, professional, or research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.
• 8. Disclosure of Review Comments
  Reviewers’ comments and editorial decisions are communicated to the author in an appropriate form. The journal may edit or remove information that could reveal the reviewer’s identity or violate confidentiality. The purpose of disclosing review comments is to help authors improve the scholarly quality of their manuscripts and to ensure transparency in the review process.
• 9. Appeals and Objections
  Authors may submit an appeal or objection to an editorial decision within 30 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must include a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. The Editorial Board reviews the appeal and may consult additional reviewers or members of the Research Ethics Committee if necessary. The final decision after appeal rests with the Editorial Board.
• 10. Record Keeping
  Epistémè maintains records of submissions, review reports, editorial decisions, author revisions, and related correspondence for the purpose of transparency, accountability, and quality control in journal management.

7. Research Ethics Committee

• 1. Epistémè maintains a Research Ethics Committee to address ethical concerns related to submissions and publications.
• 2. The committee consists of the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, and external experts if necessary.
• 3. The committee investigates allegations of research misconduct and ensures due process.
• 4. The committee may review cases involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, conflict of interest, violation of participant rights, or other ethical concerns.

8. Research Misconduct Investigation and Consequences

• 1. If research misconduct, such as plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, duplicate publication, or inappropriate authorship, is suspected, Epistémè will conduct a thorough investigation.
• 2. The accused author(s) have the right to respond before a final decision is made.
• 3. The Editorial Board or Research Ethics Committee may request relevant documents, data, explanations, or additional information from the author(s), reviewers, or other parties involved.
• 4. If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may take corrective actions, including:
  • a. Formal warning to the author(s)
    b. Request for correction or revision
    c. Rejection of the manuscript
    d. Retraction or correction of the published article
    e. Temporary or permanent ban on future submissions
    f. Notification to the author’s institution or funding body
    g. Legal action in severe cases

9. Research Participant Protection

• 1. If a study involves surveys, interviews, oral history, human participants, personal information, or analysis of sensitive data, authors must obtain informed consent from participants.
• 2. Researchers must ensure the anonymity, privacy, and dignity of participants. Collected data should not be used for purposes beyond the stated research objectives.
• 3. Participants must have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without facing any negative consequences.
• 4. If ethical risks cannot be fully assessed by the researcher, it is recommended to seek approval from an Institutional Review Board or an equivalent ethics review body before conducting the research.

10. Confidentiality and Data Protection

• 1. Authors must ensure the confidentiality of participants’ personal data and comply with applicable data protection regulations, including GDPR or other relevant privacy laws where applicable.
• 2. Personal information, interview records, survey responses, images, and other identifiable data must be handled securely and used only for legitimate research purposes.
• 3. Any ethical concerns regarding data use, privacy, or confidentiality must be reported promptly to the Editorial Board.

11. Handling Ethical Disputes

• 1. Ethical disputes will be reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee.
• 2. Appeals to committee decisions must be submitted within 30 days of notification.
• 3. The committee will review the appeal based on the submitted evidence, relevant regulations, and the principles of fairness, transparency, and due process.
• 4. The final decision will be communicated to the relevant parties in writing.

12. Copyright Notice and License Agreement

By submitting a manuscript to Epistémè, the corresponding author confirms, on behalf of all authors, that all authors have read and agreed to the journal’s Copyright Notice and License Agreement. The author(s) retain copyright of their work and grant Epistémè and the Center for Applied Cultural Studies the rights necessary for publication, online dissemination, indexing, archiving, preservation, and scholarly distribution of the article.
Please refer to the journal’s Copyright Notice for details regarding copyright ownership, open access licensing, author rights, third-party materials, and copyright use consent procedures.

13. Plagiarism Screening System

Epistémè operates a plagiarism screening procedure to ensure the originality and academic integrity of submitted manuscripts. All submitted manuscripts may be checked through a plagiarism detection system, such as the KCI Similarity Check Service or other equivalent plagiarism screening tools, before peer review and/or prior to final publication.
The Editorial Board reviews the similarity report to identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation, or excessive textual overlap. A high similarity rate does not automatically constitute plagiarism; the Editorial Board evaluates the report in context, considering proper quotation, citation, methodology, terminology, and unavoidable overlap.
If potential plagiarism or excessive similarity is detected, the Editorial Board may request an explanation or revision from the author(s). In serious cases, the manuscript may be rejected, the review process may be suspended, or the matter may be referred to the Research Ethics Committee for further investigation.
For accepted manuscripts, publication may be withheld until the plagiarism screening process has been completed and the Editorial Board confirms that the manuscript meets the journal’s research ethics standards.

14. Policy Implementation and Updates

• 1. This policy has been in effect since January 1, 2025, and applies to all submissions and publications in Epistémè.
• 2. The journal reserves the right to update this policy to reflect evolving ethical standards, publication practices, legal requirements, and academic publishing guidelines.
• 3. Any major revisions to this policy will be announced through the journal’s official website.
• 4. Authors, reviewers, editors, and members of the Editorial Board are expected to comply with the most recent version of this policy.