1. Statement & Scope

The publication of peer-reviewed research in Philantrom advances rigorous, transparent, and socially responsible scholarship in philanthropy, nonprofit management, CSR/ESG, public policy, social entrepreneurship, and impact measurement. All parties—authors, editors, reviewers, publisher, and the scholarly community—must uphold the highest standards of integrity.

2. Editors’ Responsibilities

• Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief decides which submissions are accepted, based on editorial board input and peer-review reports, while observing laws on defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.
• Fair play / Non-discrimination. Manuscripts are evaluated for scholarly merit irrespective of authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, or political views.
• Confidentiality. Editors and staff must keep submissions confidential, sharing information only with corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, advisers, and the publisher as appropriate.
• Disclosure & conflicts of interest. Unpublished materials in submissions must not be used in editors’ own research or professional activities.

3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

• Contribution to decisions. Reviewers assist editors with impartial evaluations and constructive recommendations that help authors improve their work.
• Timeliness. Reviewers who cannot meet deadlines should notify the editor promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned.
• Confidentiality. All manuscripts are confidential and must not be shared or discussed; Philantrom uses a double-blind process.
• Objectivity. Reviews should be evidence-based, respectful, and supported by clear arguments and relevant literature.
• Source recognition. Reviewers identify missing citations and alert editors to plagiarism, overlap, or uncredited use of data/figures.
• Disclosure & conflicts of interest. Reviewers must decline assignments when conflicts exist with any author, institution, funder, nonprofit, corporate CSR unit, or foundation related to the work.

4. Authors’ Responsibilities

• Report original findings accurately with sufficient methodological detail and references to permit verification or replication.
• Fabrication, falsification, or knowingly misleading statements constitute misconduct.

• Authors may be asked for underlying data and should ensure appropriate access and retention, while protecting participant privacy, donor anonymity (where applicable), and community confidentiality.
• For program evaluations/impact studies, disclose instruments, sampling/selection criteria, and analytic decisions that materially affect results.

• Ensure originality and proper quotation/citation of others’ work; avoid duplicate or concurrent submission to other journals.

• Cite influential scholarship and acknowledge non-author contributors (e.g., implementing partners, enumerators, data providers) appropriately.

• List as authors only those with substantial contributions. The corresponding author keeps co-authors informed and confirms approval of the final manuscript.

• Obtain ethics approval where required; secure informed consent/assent and protect vulnerable groups in community-based research.
• Avoid conflicts arising from funder influence on design, analysis, or reporting; disclose any funder role transparently.

• Disclose financial and non-financial interests (e.g., employment, consultancy, board memberships, grants, in-kind support) that might influence interpretation.

• Upon discovering a significant error, promptly notify the editor and cooperate in issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

5. Publisher’s Responsibilities

• Editorial independence. Advertising, sponsorships, or commercial revenue do not influence editorial decisions.
• Ethical oversight. The publisher supports COPE-aligned practices and coordinates with institutions, funders, or other journals when addressing ethical concerns.

6. Publication Misconduct & Actions

• Allegations. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, image/table manipulation, citation manipulation, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, ghostwriting/guest authorship, or undisclosed conflicts will be investigated by the editors.
• Sector-specific concerns. Undisclosed funder influence, selective outcome reporting, undisclosed program risks to communities, or misrepresentation of impact will be treated as serious misconduct.
• Editorial actions. Depending on findings, actions may include rejection, request for revision, correction/erratum, expression of concern, or retraction in line with COPE guidance.
• Transparency. Authors will be notified of decisions; institutions, implementing partners, or funders may be contacted where appropriate.