English-Language Philosophy Journal Paper Submission Policies

Archive:
View tables from previous years

Tables 1 and 2 have been compiled from the list of English-language philosophy and logic journals listed on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_journals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_journals, several others not listed there, those advertised on the Philosophy in Europe E-list since 29 July 2008, the Philosophy Documentation Center, and selectively from the list at PhilPapers. Journals that have ceased publication, been absorbed into other journals, or that lack an accessible English-language website have not been included. As of 31 December 2023, a total of 898 journals are surveyed. The text of each journal’s paper submission policy statement is quoted and analyzed, and on that basis assigned to one of the categories below. Overlooked additions to the list, as well as updates of policies cited below, would be appreciated. Any revisions or additions received by 15 December 2024 will be posted here in January 2025.

Best Practice Peer Review Policy Terms: At http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/review/peer.asp , Taylor & Francis Author Services offers the following definitions of peer review: “Under single-blind review the reviewer's name is hidden from the author. Under double-blind review the identity of the reviewers and the authors are hidden from each other. This level of anonymity is designed to encourage fairness, with papers being considered on their individual merits.” The American Philosophical Association advocates “author-anonymous” review at http://www.apaonline.org/APAOnline/About_The_APA/Statements/Guidelines/Anonymous_Review_of_Manuscripts.aspx for journal publications and conferences “in assuring fairness and eliminating possible bias.” The European Peer Review Guide at http://www.vr.se/download/18.2ab49299132224ae10680001647/1315408483304/European+Peer+Review+Guide.pdf includes among its Core Principles of Peer Review “2. Impartiality: All proposals submitted must be treated equally. They should be evaluated on their merits, irrespective of their origin or the identity of the applicants.“ The term “blind review” is therefore ambiguous. Tables 1 and 2 below use the following disambiguating definitions in analyzing journals’ explicit paper submission policy statements:

Category Definitions:
•No Comprehensive Blind Review Policy =df. either no mention of any kind of blind review; or only intermittent blind review of some kind, dependent on circumstance or preference; or only single-blind review (= only referees are anonymized).
•Only Prepare Paper for Author-Anonymous Review =df. consistent and impartial paper preparation instructions anonymizing author, but no explicitly stated commitment to blind refereeing or double-blind review itself.
•Explicit Unspecified Blind Review =df. explicitly stated commitment to blind review of some kind, but unspecified whether author or referee or both are blind.
•Explicit Author-Anonymous Review =df. explicitly specifies that referee, not author, is blind.
•Explicit Double-Blind Review =df. explicitly stated, consistent and impartial commitment to both blind author (= anonymous referee(s)) and also blind referee(s) (= anonymous author).
•Explicit Strict Blind Submission Procedure =df. explicitly stated, consistent and impartial commitment to blind author, blind referees, and blind journal administrators and representatives (editors, assistants, interns, etc.).

TABLE 1 surveys all English-language journals from the sources listed above. The table indicates that 76.72% of all English-language philosophy journals state no explicit commitment to double-blind review. Of course actual practice may diverge from stated policy, unless the entire review procedure from author to referee has been computerized so as to ensure conformity with stated policy. Click here to view TABLE 1-2023.

TABLE 2 surveys all English-language journals from the sources listed above that publish technical papers in logic, mathematics or decision theory. The table indicates that 84.05% of all English-language technical philosophy journals state no explicit commitment to double-blind review. Of course actual practice may diverge from stated policy, unless the entire review procedure from author to referee has been computerized so as to ensure conformity with stated policy. Click here to view TABLE 2-2023.

MAD DOG REFEREE REPORTS ANONYMOUS ONLINE SURVEY gathers data on a variety of substandard article and book refereeing practices, on an ongoing basis. Its purpose is to ascertain and disseminate information about how widespread these practices are, in a form that protects those who have been on the receiving end of them. Click here to take the survey.