Rules for Conducting Peer Review
Conditions for publication
The European Journal of Philosophical Research receives more articles than it can publish. Therefore, we ask reviewers to keep in mind that every accepted article means another good article may be rejected. To appear in the European Journal of Philosophical Research , an article must meet four basic requirements:
- Have compelling evidence to support the author's conclusions.
- Possess novelty.
- To be of interest to scientists in this field.
- Ideally, it should be of interest to researchers in other related disciplines.
So, to appear in the journal, an article must be sufficiently novel to change the way we view the subject under study. There must be a clear reason why the work deserves publication in the European Journal of Philosophical Research.
The review process
The editorial board reads all received manuscripts. To save authors and reviewers time, only articles that meet the editorial criteria are sent for review. Articles deemed uninteresting or otherwise unsuitable by the editors are rejected without review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from experts in the field).
Manuscripts that are of interest to readers are sent to one or two reviewers for review. The editors then make a decision based on the editors' assessment.
Reviewers' Choice
The selection of reviewers is crucial to the publication process, and we base our selection on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own previous experience with the editor. For example, we try to avoid people who are slow, inattentive, or unsubstantiated in their views, whether they are harsh or soft. We vet potential editors before submitting manuscripts for review. Reviewers must understand that these communications contain confidential information and treat them accordingly.
Writing a review
The primary purpose of a peer review is to inform editorial decisions. The review should also include recommendations to authors on how to improve their manuscripts for publication. A negative review should highlight the manuscript's weaknesses as much as possible, so that authors whose work was rejected understand the basis for the decision and see what can be done to improve the manuscript. This function is secondary, so reviewers are not obligated to provide authors whose articles do not meet the journal's guidelines with a detailed, constructive justification (as outlined in the editor's letter to the reviewer). If a reviewer believes a manuscript is unsuitable for publication, their response to the author should be sufficiently long to ensure the author understands the reason for the rejection.
Anonymity
We do not disclose reviewers' identities to authors or other reviewers unless they specifically request their names. Otherwise, we prefer that reviewers remain anonymous during and after the review process.
Review publication conditions
All manuscripts received by the European Journal of Philosophical Research and selected for review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers selected by the editor. Authors may suggest suitable independent reviewers or request the exclusion of one or two reviewers or laboratories from the journal. The journal understands and generally appreciates such requests, but the editor reserves the right to select the reviewers.
Ethics and Safety
The editors of the European Journal of Philosophical Research may seek advice from technical editors not only regarding submitted manuscripts but also regarding any aspect that raises concerns. This may include, for example, ethical issues, questions of factual presentation, or questions of access to materials. Sometimes, concerns may have societal implications, including security risks. In such circumstances, advice will focus on the technical review process. As with all publishing decisions, the final decision on publication remains the responsibility of the journal editor.
