This page presents the current SSPCZ 2026 rules on submission intake, anonymous review, AI use, decisions, academic integrity and appeals, based on the Chinese-language Rules for Submission Intake and Review. Every paper must be accompanied by a signed Submission Originality and Responsibility Confirmation, currently available in Chinese. If a later formal notice differs from provisional information on this page, the formal notice prevails.

Submission and Intake

The provisional deadline is 20 September 2026 at 23:59, subject to formal notice.
Authors must submit the paper, a signed Submission Originality and Responsibility Confirmation, and any identity, contact or version information required by the submission notice.
The paper, confirmation and other attachments must correspond. Author details, contact information, title, authorship and declarations must not contain obvious contradictions or inaccuracies.
If material or a required signature is missing, the conference may set a correction deadline. A submission may be declined if the correction is not made on time.
A replacement file must be clearly versioned. An unconfirmed duplicate does not automatically replace the version already on record.

After the completeness and basic-compliance check, the paper receives an identifier and enters anonymous review. Passing this formal check does not mean that the paper has received academic approval.

Anonymous Review

Review proceeds on a rolling basis. Each paper is normally read and assessed independently by two or three reviewers, who must check for conflicts of interest before accessing it. The paper identifier is the principal means of identification during review; information not required for the work is not disclosed to reviewers.

Reviewers first form their own assessments. The Academic Team then checks scores, comments and recommended outcomes. A result takes effect only after this confirmation. Papers with large score differences, conflicting outcomes, inadequate evidence or an integrity concern must be reviewed further rather than receiving an automatic final result.

Evaluation Framework (50 points)

Scores help reviewers apply a consistent scale; they do not replace an assessment of the paper as a whole.

Dimension	Points	Main focus
Structure of reasons	12	Whether the central claim is supported, the reasoning is coherent and important objections or counterexamples are answered
Development of the question	12	Whether the question is clear and worth discussing, the analysis makes real progress, and the conclusion answers and reflects on the opening question
Independent contribution	10	Whether the paper goes beyond compiling material to offer the author’s own judgment, perspective, distinction or argument
Command of concepts	6	Whether philosophical terms, theoretical claims and conceptual relationships are understood accurately and used appropriately
Academic verifiability	6	Accurate, proper citation: 4 points; complete formatting and required information: 2 points
Quality of expression	4	Whether diction, syntax, register and overall readability suit academic exchange

The same problem must not be penalised repeatedly across dimensions. For example, a misunderstanding of a term belongs primarily under command of concepts. It affects structure of reasons as well only when it causes the argument itself to fail, and the review must explain that connection.

Artificial Intelligence Policy

AI tools may be used for limited assistance, but the author must retain substantive control over the core question, main claims and reasoning, and must be able to explain, verify and correct the final text. Tool use does not excuse factual errors, fabricated citations or defects in argument.

AI may not be listed as an author or co-author, or treated as the author of a citation, note or reference.
Authors who use AI must disclose it separately in the cover letter, acknowledgements and methods section.
The disclosure must at least identify the tool and version, its actual use or operating method, and the complete prompts required by the conference. All three disclosures must agree.
Authors who did not use AI need only make the corresponding declaration in the Submission Originality and Responsibility Confirmation.

AI-generated main-text proportion established after overall review	Process
No more than 15%	Normal academic and compliance review; the proportion alone does not lead to an adverse finding
More than 15% and no more than 30%	Returned for revision and re-reviewed after resubmission
More than 30%	Normally rejected; exceptional cases are reconsidered by the Academic Team with the author’s explanation

Automated detection is only an indicator. Where a result is clearly disputed, the conference will not determine a violation from one tool’s percentage alone. It will consider textual features, disclosure, version history, human review and the author’s explanation.

Review Outcomes

The confirmed score and the scale of revision required together produce one of four outcomes. If the score cannot be reconciled with the actual state of the paper, the Academic Team must review the case instead of applying the threshold mechanically.

Outcome	Score	Normal meaning
Accept	38–50	Meets the overall standard for conference exchange and enters selection for presentation places
Minor revision	28–37	The main structure can remain, but several clear problems must be corrected
Major revision	18–27	Core analysis, argument or academic-standard issues require substantial reconstruction
Reject	0–17	Does not continue to a revision stage in this round

Submission Date and Next Steps

Eligibility for revision and re-review depends on the date on which the submission enters the system. 15 September 2026 is the cut-off for a revision opportunity. Papers submitted from 16 to 20 September do not receive revision and re-review.

Outcome	Submitted by 15 September	Submitted 16–20 September
Accept	Considered for a presentation place; otherwise may become an attending paper	Considered for a presentation place
Minor revision	Revised and re-reviewed; a successful paper enters presentation selection, while an unsuccessful or abandoned revision becomes an attending paper	No re-review; becomes an attending paper
Major revision	Substantially revised and re-reviewed; a successful paper becomes an attending paper, while an unsuccessful or abandoned revision is rejected	No re-review; rejected
Reject	The submission process ends	The submission process ends

The closer a submission is to the deadline, the less time is available for correction and revision. The deadline remains provisional until confirmed by formal notice.

Academic Integrity and High-Risk Content

The conference distinguishes insufficient quality from an integrity violation. Weak reasoning, lack of citation or incomplete formatting is not automatically misconduct. Fabricated citations or material, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate submission or concealment of substantial AI use requires a separate inquiry. Once verified, the conference may issue a warning, reject or withdraw the paper, or cancel an existing status according to the nature, impact and degree of fault.

The conference may pause review, ask for an explanation or return a paper that is intended to incite violence, hatred, discrimination or unlawful activity; attacks a particular group; deliberately uses fabricated facts or data as evidence; or presents another serious risk contrary to applicable law or policy. A critical philosophical position is not itself a violation. The relevant questions are purpose, factual basis and real-world risk.

Revision, Explanation and Appeal

An author asked to revise must submit a new version in the time, manner and format stated in the result notice. Sending an explanation without the required material does not complete a revision. If the conference asks about citations, AI use or another compliance issue, the author may provide version records, sources, prompt records or other necessary material.

An author who disputes an outcome, procedure or factual finding may appeal through the channel and within the period stated in the result notice, identifying the specific issue and supporting grounds. An appeal is not a resubmission. The Academic Team will check procedure, conflicts of interest, consistency between scores and comments, and any new evidence, and may appoint new reviewers where necessary.

Interpretation, Confidentiality and Effect

Unpublished papers, author identities, reviews and internal verification information are used only for conference duties. The Academic Team and reviewers may not disclose them to a third party without authorisation.

The SSPCZ 2026 Academic Team administers and interprets these rules. Operational information on conference dates, submission deadlines, submission methods and contact channels follows formal conference notices. If another rule is changed, affected authors will be told its scope of application.