Radical Philosophy Review
The Radical Philosophy Review accepts unsolicited articles of no more than 10,000 words. Submissions should be sent as e-mail attachments (preferably in Word format) to the coordinator of the executive editorial committee, Harry van der Linden, at [email protected].
Please attach two copies, one of which has been prepared for anonymous refereeing with all direct or indirect references to the author removed. Include an abstract of no more than 125 words, a short author bio of no more than 75 words, and e-mail and mailing address. Citation style should follow The Chicago Manual of Style with a reference list and only short-title citations in the footnotes.. A helpful resource on The Chicago Manual of Style is available here.
Electronic submissions are preferred. Alternatively, three print copies (including two prepared for blind review) may be sent to the address below:
Harry van der Linden
Editor, Radical Philosophy Review
Dept of Philosophy, Religion, and Classics
4600 Sunset Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Review Essay / Review Manuscripts
The Radical Philosophy Review accepts unsolicited review essays of no more than 4,000 words and book reviews of no more than 2,000 words. Review essays and book reviews should be sent as e-mail attachments (preferably in Word format) to the book review editor, Richard Peterson, at [email protected]. Authors interested in writing reviews or review essays should contact the review editor for copies of recently published books. See also:
RPR Book Review Guidelines
Publication decisions are typically made within 3 months.
Publication Ethics Statement
The editorial team of the Radical Philosophy Review 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 works, 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 on the basis of their academic merit and the journal's mission. 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.