PDC Homepage

Home » Products » Social Philosophy Today » Submission Guidelines

Social Philosophy Today

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Originally established in 1988 as a book series, Social Philosophy Today has evolved into a well-respected peer-reviewed annual journal. It is published in electronic format and is also available in print on demand. Each volume is based on the theme of the previous annual International Social Philosophy Conference. We also welcome submissions from non-conference participants, and only those articles recommended on the basis of anonymous peer review are accepted for publication. The acceptance rate is approximately 30%.

All papers submitted for editorial evaluation should be prepared for blind review according to the guidelines below. Submission of a manuscript is understood to imply that the manuscript is offered to Social Philosophy Today for first publication and is not under consideration by any other journal.

Manuscript Preparation

To facilitate anonymous review, the author should not be identified in the manuscript, the abstract, or in any electronic signature. Author contact information, including name, institutional affiliation, and an e-mail address, must be submitted as an attachment on a separate title sheet.

Manuscripts should be submitted in Word format (.doc, .docx, .rtf). They should be double-spaced - including quotations, notes, and references - and the right margin should not be justified. The maximum length is 6,000 words.

We use The Chicago Manual of Style “notes and bibliography system” for endnotes, and request that authors use this in their submissions. A helpful resource on The Chicago Manual of Style is available online here.

A complete submission includes an abstract (max. 200 words) and a reference list. For references use the University of Chicago style, e.g.,

    Anderson, Elizabeth. Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

    Chamallas, Martha. “Consent, Equality, and the Legal Control of Sexual Conduct.” Southern California Law Review 61 (1987): 826-30.

Please list author names in each citation and avoid 3-em-dashes or other replacements for the author’s name in multiple citations

Manuscripts and title sheets should be submitted by email as separate attachments to [email protected].

Authors of manuscripts accepted for publication retain the right to reuse their own articles in all other publications they write or edit, and no further permission is required. We only require appropriate acknowledgement of the original publication in Social Philosophy Today.


Publications Ethics Statement

The editorial team of Social Philosophy Today 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 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, companies, 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.


Overview
Free Content
Online First
Editorial Team
Browse Contents
Get current table of contents via RSSRSS Feeds
Email UpdatesE-mail Updates
Find us on facebook
Special Issues
About the Society
Indexing / Abstracting
Submission Guidelines
Rights & Permissions

For Subscribers:
Access this publication
Change Address
Renew