Tattva, Journal of Philosophy, seeks to facilitate critical study and in-depth reflection and analysis of issues, problems and concerns of human life, in order to further the directions and transformations human society needs to evolve into. It targets philosophers, educational institutions, research centres, social scientists, policy makers and any individual interested in and commited to human welfare.
- ISSN: 0975-332X
- Indexed: Included in the UGC recognised journal list (Journal ID 42130); Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) 2013407285
- Open Access: The journal follows an open access policy. All the issues are available online.
- Peer review: Tattva Journal of Philsophy is a double blind peer-reviewed journal.
- Letters to Editors: The email can be sent with the subject line clearly mentioning "Letter to the Editor"
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
- Every contribution submitted to the journal should be accompanied by a declaration that the article is original and has not been published nor submitted elsewhere for publication.
- All submitted articles will be double-blind reviewed. Acceptance of articles is subject to recommendation by the review panel and subsequent acceptance by the editor.
- Every accepted article will be copy-edited. The Editorial Board reserves the right to make necessary revisions to the text in keeping with the journal style sheet and standard.
- Every author will receive a complimentary copy of the issue in which one’s paper appears.
Ethical Guidelines for Authors
- Authors need to ensure that the research paper submitted is original and has not been published elsewhere under the same or different title.
- Authors need to ensure that all the authors are represented accurately and clear references are given to work done by others.
- Research submissions having more than one author need to provide the name and proper contact details of a designated corresponding author. The corresponding author will be responsible for all timely communications with the editor and publisher, both before and after publication, regarding the originality and other ethical concerns of the paper. The publisher and editor will hold such a designated corresponding author responsible for any misrepresentation of facts or misconduct found either before or after the publication. All co-authors of a paper are expected to remain in good communication amongst themselves.
- The onus is on the authors to reveal the source of all data and third-party material used. This includes any material used previously in both published and unpublished work by the authors themselves.
- Use of any third party material is to be done after obtaining the written permission from the respective copyright holders. The permission documents should be submitted along with the research work submitted for publication and, at any stage, the publisher or editor cannot be held responsible for the improper use of copyrighted material in the research work. The authors should cooperate, if any investigation is initiated by the editor or publisher, in case data used in a study is found to be false, insufficient, or misrepresented. Authors are expected to adhere to the editor or publisher when the source of data, proof of authorship or any such detail is requested.
- Any conflict of interest should be stated clearly. If the research work submitted for publication benefits a company, organisation or service that any of the authors is a part of, then the work should be accompanied by a disclosure.
- When any ethical or technical issue is found with a published research work, the authors should be ready to provide corrigenda in a timely manner and cooperate with the editor and publisher in case of publication of an errata or retraction of the published research work.
Ethical Guidelines for Editors
- Editors should read and understand the ethics policy, and follow it during all editorial processes ensuring the maintenance of the highest quality of academic integrity in publications. Editors should ensure that the research work submitted for publication complies with the requirements of the journal.
- Editors should do a rigorous, objective and confidential review of all original research submissions that pass the initial quality check and editorial assessment. The initial quality check should also include an originality check using a plagiarism detection software amongst other appropriate methods. Research work that does not pass the initial test need not be considered for publication. However, the Editor needs to inform the author stating the reason for rejection.
- Editors should provide the best care to the authors. All publication processes should be transparent and any queries from the authors regarding the publication process should be answered in a timely manner. Editors should communicate all editorial decisions regarding a research work submitted for publication to the respective author and give the authors the chance to appeal against the same.
- All research work submitted for publication should be subjected to a double-blind peer review and the review report should be submitted to the publisher for archival purposes. Any work that does not need a peer review should be accompanied by an editorial note that justifies its selection for publication.
- Editors should ensure that the reviewers submit their reviews in the format given by the publisher and the review is done within a month from the receipt of the article. If the review report is not received and forwarded to the author within a month, the editor should inform the author on the reason for delay.
- Editors need to keep the publishers informed of all editorial decisions and submit all relevant documents supporting the same. Any discrepancy, misrepresentation or insufficiency in copyright permissions procured by a research work sent for publication, as identified by the editor, should be brought to the notice of the publisher.
- Any article found using false data or has a detrimental impact on society should not be considered for publication. In case it is found to be so after the publication, the editors should publish an errata or corrigendum or retract the article depending on the seriousness of the issue.
Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
- Reviewers should read and understand the publication ethical policy of the journal and guidelines for the submission of document for publication. Reviewers may not accept the invitation to review a research work if they do not agree to the ethical policy of the journal or find the work submitted for review not relevant to their area of expertise.
- Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of their work. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the author of a research work submitted for review and should maintain their anonymity.
- Reviewers should communicate well with the editors and publisher. Reviewers may approach the editors if they have any queries regarding the journal and its policies.
- Reviewers should assess a work honestly, rigorously and objectively. Use of unprofessional or subjective language should be avoided in the review report. The review report should be sent to the editor within 28 days from the receipt of the research work for review.
- Reviewers should be ready to review the research work they reviewed earlier. The reviewers may suggest changes and report any ethical misconduct to the editors. The author reworked papers may be sent to them for reconsideration.