Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Philosophical Criticism (JPC) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and impactful contributions to the field of philosophy. To achieve this goal, we employ a rigorous and fair double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the expectations for reviewers and provides information for authors about the review process.
- Expertise: Reviewers should be qualified experts in the relevant area of philosophical inquiry. They should have a strong understanding of the current state of research and the ability to critically assess new work.
- Objectivity and Fairness: Reviewers should offer unbiased and constructive feedback, considering the manuscript solely based on its intellectual merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope. Personal biases, conflicts of interest, or irrelevant considerations must be avoided.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the anonymity of the author(s) throughout the review process. Any information about the manuscript or its author(s) obtained during the review should be held in strict confidence.
- Thoroughness and Timeliness: Reviewers should read the manuscript carefully and provide detailed feedback addressing the following aspects:
- Originality and significance: Does the work present a novel contribution to the field? Does it address a significant philosophical question or problem?
- Clarity and argumentation: Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized? Are the arguments sound and well-supported by evidence?
- Methodological rigor: Are the methods used appropriate and justified? Are the results presented accurately and interpreted convincingly?
- Citations and references: Are relevant sources cited accurately and comprehensively? Are the references up-to-date and appropriate?
- Overall quality: Does the manuscript meet the standards for publication in JPC?
- Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive feedback that helps the author improve their work. This includes identifying strengths and weaknesses, suggesting ways to address the identified problems, and offering specific recommendations for improvement. However, personal attacks or disrespectful language should be avoided.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as personal relationships with the author(s), collaboration on previous projects, or any other bias that might influence their evaluation of the manuscript. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer should recuse themselves from the review process.
- Double-blind: JPC employs a double-blind review process, meaning that the reviewers' names are not revealed to the authors, and the authors' names are not revealed to the reviewers. This helps to ensure that the review process is objective and fair.
- Number of reviewers: Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two to three independent reviewers.
- Review turnaround time: Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within a reasonable timeframe, typically within 4-6 weeks.
- Editorial decision: The final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' reports and their own assessment of the manuscript.