Philosophica: International Journal for the History of Philosophy
Philosophica is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original articles and reviews on all areas of the history of philosophy. Articles should make relevant, original contributions to their area of research and must not have been published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The journal accepts manuscripts in Portuguese, Spanish, French or English. Reviews cover new publications in several languages. All material in this journal is published on an open access basis with a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 publishing license.
Philosophica is currently sponsored by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (UIDP/00310/2020). No payment is required for submission or publication in this journal.
All submissions are triple-blind refereed: the identity of the authors is not revealed to the referees, the identity of the referees is not revealed to the authors, and the identity of the authors is not revealed to the editors. Each submissions is reviewed by two referees.
Review of submitted manuscripts proceeds in three stages:
- 1. Preliminary evaluation by the editors
- 2. Triple-blind peer-review
- 3. Review of referees' reports and final decision by the editors
Referees are given 40 working days to evaluate the submission, after which they are asked to classify it into one of three categories: accepted, conditionally accepted (revisions required), and rejected.
In the case of conditional acceptance, authors are given 15 working days to revise their manuscripts. When presenting their revised submission to the editors, authors must include a brief report explaining how they addressed the referees’ suggestions. If any suggestion is left unaddressed, the author’s reasons for doing so must be included.
Positive referees’ reports are not sufficient for acceptance and the editors reserve the right to make final decision. On average the reviewing process takes 4 to 5 months.
All manuscripts should be submitted online through the following website: http://philosophica.letras.ulisboa.pt/.
Article manuscripts should have a maximum length of 12,000 words, including footnotes and references. An abstract should be included (single paragraph, no more than 200 words, along with a set of five keywords. For articles written in languages other than English, please provide the article title, abstract, and keywords in English.
Reviews should be no more than 2,000 words, including the complete reference of the book reviewed and other bibliographic references.
All manuscripts must be thoroughly proofread by a native speaker prior to submission.
For every submission authors must provide their personal information in their profile on the submission platform, including:
- Name, institutional affiliation, professional status
- Address, phone number, e-mail
- Link to personal ORCID profile (if available)
Submitted manuscripts must be thoroughly anonymized, including removal of identifying metadata in the file, and prepared for blind review.
Publication Ethics Statement
The editorial team of Philosophica is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work, as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to confirm a chain of reasoning or experimental result. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper.
The Publisher will respond to alleged or proven cases of research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism in close collaboration with the editors. The publisher will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question if necessary. This may include the publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.