Review Process

Information note
Date of online publication: 20 septembre 2024

1The review process for papers submitted to Forum Philosophicum adheres to the following guidelines:

  1. A paper, submitted to the Editor, may be returned to the author if it does not meet the criteria described in the section Submissions, or if it does not discuss a topic within a subject-area of interest to Forum Philosophicum.

  2. All manuscripts submitted to Forum are checked using iThenticate plagiarism detection system for duplicate and unattributed content. The Forum Philosophicum publication process follows the guidelines of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

  3. Each paper will be sent to two reviewers for blind review. At least one of the reviewers must be affiliated in a different country than the author.

  4. The Editors do not intend, however, to verify whether the author has not made any references to his/her other works in the text, which may enable his/her identification. It is only suggested that authors who deem it necessary to make references to their works do this in the ultimate draft of their article, submitted after the text has been accepted for publication.

  5. Members of the Board, including the Editor, are not allowed to write reviews. No specialist who is known to be related to the author or who may reasonably be thought to have collaborated with the author or supervised his/her work is eligible as a reviewer.

  6. Reviewers are explicitly asked to focus on the research and philosophical merits of a paper; they are told that any linguistic and/or technical deficiencies pertaining to an otherwise good paper may be dealt with separately by the editors.

  7. The reviewers are asked to conclude their review with a clear opinion, stating that a paper is (A) publishable without revisions, or (B) may be published after minor revisions have been introduced, or (C) may be resubmitted after major revision, or (F) should not be considered for publication at all.

  8. We will also observe the anonymity rule with regard to revealing the name of the reviewer to the author unless the reviewer explicitly expresses his or her request to have his or her name revealed to the author (this means that the name of the reviewer will not be deleted from the copy of the review form which is sent to the author). We assume, however, that the latter may occur by way of exception – acceptable if, e.g., the author and the reviewer are about to engage in a philosophically interesting exchange of comments – rather than as a rule.

  9. Regardless of the decision of the reviewer and the Editorial Board, the author will get to know the relevant part of the review containing general assessment of the submitted text and pinpointing its shortcomings. Should an article be tentatively accepted, the review will indicate what requires corrections or modifications in the article.

  10. The final decision concerning which of the papers that have obtained two positive reviews are to be published is taken by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board after careful reading all the reviews. Although reviewers are instructed about the journal policies and the meaning of their assessment, at the end of the day, all reviews are interpreted by the Editors – especially when the content of the review does not correspond to the final assessment.

  11. The names and affiliations of all reviewers are published annually in the Fall issue and at the website of the journal.

1st review recommendation

2nd review recommendation

Editors’ decision

A

A

Accepted with no revisions

A

B

Minor revision needed

A

C

3rd review needed

A

F

3rd review needed

B

B

Minor revision needed

B

C

3rd review needed

B

F

3rd review needed

C

C

Resubmission

C

F

Rejection

F

F

Rejection

2 

Copyright