Australasian Journal of Philosophy

Editorial Policy and Procedures

• Scope and Approach
• Authorship, CRediT, and Generative AI
• Conflicts of interest
• Language and inclusion
• Unsolicited submissions
• • Articles
  • Discussion notes
• • Limits on unsolicited submissions
• Solicited submissions
• Evaluation of submissions
• Feedback to authors
  • Comments on the Grounds for Decisions
• Publication priorities
• Indicative acceptance rates
• 
  

Scope and Approach

The Australasian Journal of Philosophy aims to publish original contributions of high quality and broad interest in any area of philosophy and its history. The current balance of the Journal's contents is not prescriptive.

In the first issue of the Journal, the then-editor wrote

The Journal will not be the organ of any particular school of philosophical thought. It will not be made the vehicle for any kind of propaganda. It will not scorn the old fogey in Philosophy, or disdain the new faddist, although it may criticise both. (Francis Anderson, ‘From the Editor’s Chair’, AJP 1(1): 59)

This ecumenical approach to the topics covered in the Journal continues to the present day. Nevertheless the Journal has long been associated with a particular methodological approach to philosophical argument that continues to be exemplified within its pages and desired by its readers, and we are mindful of this tradition in our editorial judgments. (While topically pluralist, AJP is perhaps less pluralist in methodology.)

The Journal is edited in Australasia, and its editorial team and board are drawn substantially from Australasian philosophers and the Australasian philosophy diaspora. But the journal is proud of its international standing and aims to publish high quality philosophy from philosophers around the world. The Journal is committed to implementing the Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy.

Authorship, CRediT, and Generative AI

All submissions to the AJP must have at least one identified corresponding author. All authors of an accepted manuscript must supply their ORCiD identifier to ensure credit is allocated correctly.

When submitting a manuscript, the corresponding author must certify that all and only authors are credited on the submission. The question, what is an author? is a surprisingly vexed one. (The COPE discussion paper 'Authorship' [ doi:10.24318/cope.2019.3.3 ] provides a useful entry point.) The AJP adopts this definition of authorship:

Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND to have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND to have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. (McNutt et al., 2018, doi:10.1073/pnas.1715374115 )

This definition requires that submissions should not have 'guest authors' credited for work they did not substantially contribute to (such individuals more properly should be mentioned in the acknowledgements). Moreover, corresponding authors must confirm, and take steps to ensure, that anyone who has made substantial contributions to the conception, design, or writing of the submitted manuscript, or to any unpublished joint work from which it derives, is credited as an author – 'ghost' and 'orphan' authorship must be avoided. This ensures appropriate credit in the scholarly ecosystem, as well as appropriate accountability for research findings and enables readers to assess potential conflicts of interest. We do not here intend to go against standard practice in the discipline: while supervisors, referees, and audience members may, through discussion and comment, prompt significant changes to a scholarly work, such contributions will typically fall short of meriting an authorship role. Such contributions must nevertheless be acknowledged appropriately and accurately.

The AJP does not at this stage require use of the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT). Accepted submissions with multiple authors are however encouraged to provide contributor information using CRediT in their ‘Acknowledgement’ section, listing only those roles that apply. Note that CRediT roles do not determine authorship, but instead provide a clear description of the specific contributions of authors and other contributors to the work.

One further aspect is worth emphasising. AJP is interested in publishing excellent works of philosophy, and our refereeing practice and editorial standards are grounded in the evaluation of the work itself, not in the circumstances of its production. Accordingly the AJP does not preclude authors from making use of generative AI tools in the production of their manuscript. We also permit the ‘cosmetic’ use of generative AI tools to improve prose style or to address issues with grammar. We acknowledge that for many contributors, including those with English as an additional language, such tools can be very useful in allowing authors to express their ideas effectively.

However, authorship as defined above involves not mere production of text, but responsibility and accountability. The editorial position of the AJP is that no generative AI model or agent is responsible or accountable for its outputs. In this we follow the COPE core position:

AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements.

Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

AJP operationalises these principles as follows. We require that authors acknowledge and detail the scale and nature of any use of generative AI tools in a statement at the end of any accepted manuscript. Where the use of AI tools is extensive and central to the research method, authors are expected to provide relevant prompts, logs, etc., as an Appendix or supplementary data to an accepted manuscript. The AJP may not proceed to unconditional acceptance where use of AI tools that is inappropriate in the view of the Editor, on advice from the editorial team, is disclosed after a submission receives a verdict of conditional acceptance.

The general thrust of these remarks applies, mutatis mutandis, to the declaration of research funding and conflicts of interest: all must be declared. 

Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures

Conflicts of interest of many kinds may arise in many ways during publication. There are potential conflicts of interest where there exist factors that may reasonably be thought to improperly influence decisions about whether to publish a given submission. There are also potential conflicts of interest where there exist factors that may reasonably be thought to improperly influence the content of a given submission. The AJP takes the view that potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed.

* * *

The first category includes personal or institutional relationships between authors, referees, and members of the editorial team that could potential result in unduly favourable or unfavourable decisions or recommendations about publication. We take steps to mitigate any potential influence by instituting a system of double anonymous review, and the AJP submission platform prevents any person from input to decisions concerning their own submissions except mediated through revisions to the submission.  Associate Editors will not extend invitations to review to referees who they reasonably suspect might have a conflict of interest of any sort in the publication of a given manuscript. This extends to any case in which the content of a submission might be reasonably thought to preclude a given individual from giving an impartial verdict on the merits of a submission. Referees who suspect a potential conflict of interest of any sort that could reasonably be thought to improperly influence their report on a submission they have been assigned must disclose it to the Associate Editor commissioning the review; the Associate Editor may in that case withdraw the invitation to referee.

Members of the Editorial Team (Editors-in Chief, Book Review Editors, Associate Editors, members of the Editoral Board, and Editorial Assistants) are also restricted in various ways from submitting to the journal and in interacting with submissions from people with whom they have a close personal or institutional relationship.  

No member of the Editorial Team may participate in the evaluation of material submitted by any of the following: a family member, institutional colleague (within the past decade), former student or supervisor, co-author (within the past decade), joint grant holder  (within the past decade). Members of the Editorial Team must disclose any other potential conflict of interest to an Editor-in-Chief. If an Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest they must assign the submission to another Editor-in-Chief or a another member of the Editorial Team to act as proxy editor and disclose the potential conflict of interest to that person; any decision on publication will be handled by that proxy editor.  

An Editor-in-Chief will not submit Articles or be commissioned to write Critical Notices during their term of office. (They may submit replies to Articles or Discussion Notes which involve their work. In this case, they will not participate in the process of assessment, and an Associate Editor or member of the Editorial Board will serve as Proxy Editor throughout the process.) Members of the Editorial Team may be commissioned to do a maximum of two Reviews and/or Book Notes each per annum.

If an Associate Editor or member of the Editorial Board submits an Article, a Discussion Note, or is commissioned to write a Critical Notice, then they will not be involved, in any way, in the assessment process. In cases where a member of the Editorial Team submits an article, the recommendation of the handling Associate Editor on the advice of the referees will not be overruled by the Editor-in-Chief.

* * *

The second category includes any factor that might reasonably be thought to influence the independence and reliability of the research reported in a submission. This could include financial factors (such as paid employment or consultancy, research or grant funding, personal investments in relevant companies) and non-financial factors (such current or former professional affiliations, unpaid writing or consulting relationships, in-kind access to data or models, close personal relationships with employees of relevant companies). Authors must disclose, at the time of submission, any individual, institution, or organisation from whom they (or anyone to whom they have a close personal or instititional relationship) have received financial or in-kind benefit that has supported the research or may reasonably be thought to have influenced the research. They should disclose the nature of the relationship. This will include acknowledgments of funding from national or international research bodies, from private philanthropic organisations, and from industry and government. Such disclosures do not at all preclude the publication of a submission, but must be made to allow editorial verdicts to consider a full range of relevant factors, and must be provided for readers of the AJP to weigh in their own evaluation of any article we publish. Where a disclosable conflict of interest exists and is not disclosed prior to acceptance, the AJP will take steps to correct the record up to and including the retraction of articles where appropriate.

Language and Inclusion

The Journal takes its position as an international journal seriously. The language of the Journal is English, the lingua franca of scholarly communication. In the central loci of philosophical activity in Australasia (Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore), English is also the common language of communication – the principal linguistic marker of the impacts of colonialism on the region. But Australasia also exemplifies a rich formal and informal linguistic diversity, often surviving from the pre-colonial period: te reo Māorii in New Zealand, the official role of Malay (and Tamil and Mandarin) in Singapore, and the more than 250 Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages.

The Journal is thus proud to associate itself with the Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy. We recognise the need for a common language of philosophical communication, but we are very mindful of the exclusionary effects of requiring first-language speaker levels of fluency in English as a precondition to publish in the journal. (This ought to be particularly sharply felt in Australia, where a ‘dictation test’ was used for many years to suppress non-white migration.)

In practice, the Journal implements the principles by aiming to evaluate submissions without giving undue weight to linguistic style or fluency. Referees are asked to comment on whether a submission is well-structured and if the ideas are clearly expressed, but are explicitly invited to set aside concerns about minor infelicities and unidiomatic expressions, and never to let such concerns be determinative of a verdict. The Journal is committed to supporting and working with all accepted authors to improve the clarity and effectiveness of their written expression. The Journal editorial office actively copyedits all accepted submissions, and many minor grammatical and stylistic issues are addressed at that stage.

The Journal is not able to implement some of the other principles as effectively. We remain committed to our regional identity, which is today principally expressed through the composition of our editorial team and editorial board rather than in the origins of accepted articles, which are thoroughly international. That limits the scope of our attempts to increase linguistic diversity in the editorial team, though perhaps a quarter of our Associate Editors have English as an additional language. And our publication system remains extremely limited in the demographic information it collects, which means we cannot at this stage track submissions by ‘native speaker’ status.

Unsolicited Submissions

The Journal welcomes unsolicited submissions of two types: Articles and Discussion Notes. These differ in their aims and length, detailed below.

The Journal considers all unsolicited manuscripts on the strict condition that they have not been published in whole or substantial part already, and that they are not under consideration for publication or in press elsewhere. We are willing to consider manuscripts that have been posted to a preprint server, such as PhilArchive or PhilSci-Archive. Please note, however, that in our attempts to minimise bias and favouritism in our refereeing process, we attempt to ensure the mutual anonymity of authors and referees, as described in our Editorial Procedures. Referees are instructed not to attempt to identify authors, but a diligent referee who keeps up to date on the preprints in their field may inadvertently deanonymise the review process. This may or may not be to the advantage of the author. Authors are urged to bear this in mind when considering whether to post preprints before submission. (The Journal encourages authors of accepted submissions to post preprints to appropriate servers, in line with guidelines provided by our publisher.)

The word counts mentioned in these policies are must be genuine counts of words, exclusive of any formatting codes. Attempts to obscure the true word count will be frowned upon. Word counts include footnotes and bibliography: basically, anything that must be copy-edited and typeset must be counted.

Articles

The journal welcomes submissions of original philosophical articles in all areas of philosophy, including the history of philosophy. Articles should aim to advance philosophical knowledge and understanding.

Articles should develop a relatively independent line of argument, even if theybuild on a particular philosophical or methodological tradition. Accordingly, the Journal will not consider unsolicited articles which are, in effect, a kind of ‘Critical Notice’ of a single author—a single non-GREAT author. (Aristotle, Plato, etc.: yes. Even the most prominent contemporary philosopher: no.) Obviously there is room for disagreement on how this criterion applies, but the editor's verdict on such matters will be final.

Articles must be at least 4500 words long, and they are also normally no longer than 8,000 words (in each case, including notes, abstract, acknowledgements, and references). Longer pieces of exceptional significance will be considered, up to a maximum length of 15,000 words (including notes, abstract, acknowledgements, and references). Please note the following points, however.

• We want the things we publish to be read. In many cases, shorter papers are more effective and their ideas more readily disseminated. The Journal does not want to prohibit ambitious papers that might take a considerable time to develop their argument, but we hope that by encouraging authors to aim at concision, the Journal will foster uptake and engagement with the articles it publishes.
• Once a paper is longer than 8,000 words the standard required for acceptance rises; and it continues doing so, the longer the paper is beyond that norm of 8000 words. So, for example, a 10,000 word paper needs to be better than an 8000 word paper, all else being equal, if it is to be accepted by AJP—indeed, if it is even to receive an invitation to revise and resubmit. A 12,000 word paper needs to be even better still. And so on, in that vein.
• A paper’s being longer than 8000 words long will not prevent its being considered, unless we believe that it is needlessly much longer than 8000 words. The longer the paper, the greater the chance we might regard its length as inessential. In that event, either we will reject the paper without seeking a referee’s report, or we will ask the author(s) to shorten and resubmit the paper before it can be sent to a referee.
• We acknowledge that some topics tend to require longer submissions. For example, papers in the history of philosophy often require extensive quotation of primary sources to support their arguments; papers in a more mathematical vein might involve proofs to establish the main results; and papers reporting experimental work might need to detail the experimental results and methods. We are generally willing to be tolerant of papers with these special requirements in going to some extent over our target word limits. Note however that this provides no blanket exemption from our word limits, and that where possible such additional material as is needed should be relegated to appendices to preserve the argumentative flow of the main paper.
• Apart from Discussion Notes described below, the Journal will not consider extremely short papers (for example, of the kind or length published by Analysis and Thought). The minimum length for an Article is 4500 words (including abstract, notes, and references).
• Our word limits reflect in part the costs to the editorial office of copyediting and production of accepted manuscripts.

Discussion Notes

Discussion Notes are at most 3000 words long (including notes, abstract, acknowledgements, and references). There is no lower bound on the length of Discussion Notes, but we would expect that it would be rare for a discussion to satisfactorily deal with an argument developed in a full-length article in under 1000 words. They must engage with and/or respond to articles recently published in the Journal (generally, within the last 3 years). The Journal will not consider Discussion Notes whose primary focus is the criticism of papers not previously and recently published in the Journal. (Discussion Notes of papers published elsewhere might be suitable for Philosophical Exchange.)

Limits on Unsolicited Submissions

• The Journal will not consider more than one submission at the same time by a given author (including when the author is a co-author or not the corresponding author). Authors must note that, if they have received a 'revise-and-resubmit' verdict from the Editor on one paper, then that paper, for the Journal's purposes, counts as still under consideration until the notified period for resubmission has run out. If an author wishes to submit a new paper after having received a 'revise-and-resubmit' verdict and before the resubmission period has passed, the earlier paper must be formally withdrawn before the newer one will be considered.
• The Journal will not consider more than two submissions from any one author in any given twelve-month period. This limit includes co-authored papers, but excludes revisions. The journal considers a paper to have been under consideration if it has been given an editorial verdict, rather than a merely administrative verdict.
• The Journal will not consider revised versions of previously rejected papers, unless the previous paper had been given an explicit verdict of ‘reject with the possibility of resubmission’. The verdict of the editor on whether a submission is a revision of a previously rejected paper or a new paper is final.
• The Journal will not consider proposals for special issues devoted to conference (including workshop) proceedings. 
• • The Journal has in the past been willing to consider proposals from organizers of symposia (of, say, two or three closely-related submissions, to be reviewed en bloc and with referees asked to comment on the merits both of individual submissions and of the symposium as a whole). However the pressure of submissions now precludes our considering such proposals.

Solicited Submissions

The Journal will solicit (invite) submissions of five types: Critical Notices, Book Reviews, Book Notes (brief reviews), Presidential Addresses, and Obituaries. Sometimes an Editor or Associate Editor of tjhe Journal may suggest that an author may consider submitting an article or discussion note to the Journal. This is not sufficient to make this a solicited submission: all manuscripts submitted as Articles or Discussion Notes are treated as Unsolicited Submissions and double-anonymously refereed in accordance with the Editorial Procedures. Our policy around book reviews and related submission types is as follows.

• There is no guarantee of review of any given book, even if a copy is supplied. While we review books from all over the world, we make a special effort (although we do not promise) to cover books authored by philosophers resident in Australasia. Decisions about which books to review are made by the Editor and Book Review Editors. Every effort is made by Review Editors to secure qualified and expert reviewers for any book.
• A Review Editor will normally initiate the review process, but individuals are welcome to make contact with the Journal so as to nominate themselves as reviewers. No book reviews, book notes, or critical notices are to be submitted without a prior invitation from a Review Editor.
• Book Reviews are to be between 1500 and 1800 words; Book Notes are to be no longer than 400 words. Neither Book Reviews nor Book Notes may include notes. Sometimes, a short bibliography is needed in a Book Review but never in a Book Note. (If a citation is needed within an AJP Book Note—a combination that is, we stress, rare—the details must appear in the body of the Note.) Book Reviews and Book Notes are to be submitted in an editable format, not as a pdf.
• Reviews and Book Notes will not be externally refereed, but a Review Editor or Editor may require or suggest changes to a Book Review or Book Note before it is to be published.
• Critical Notices will be of important works in philosophy. They will not normally exceed 5,000 words (including notes and bibliography). Critical notices are sent for anonymous review, though this review is to elicit comments, not to request a recommendation on publication.
• The final decision on publication of a solicited review rests with the Editor on advice from the Review Editors, and we may decide not to proceed with publication of a review which is at variance with disciplinary norms concerning reviews. In particular, while highly critical reviews are sometimes necessary, the AJP will not publish reviews which are abusive or demeaning.

Other invited submissions include items of particular relevance to the Australasian Association of Philosophy. Since 2025 the AJP publishes a revised version of the Address by the elected President of the AAP to its annual conference. These are explicitly flagged as such rather than as Articles or Discussion Notes. Presidential Addresses go through a modified process of single-anonymised review, to reflect the unique circumstances of their publication while also providing a measure of confidence to readers that the piece has been revised and tested in the process of peer review. The AJP also publishes from time to time obituaries remembering figures in Australasian philosophy.

The AJP occasionally publishes editorials and other non-contributed pieces at the discretion of an Editor-in-Chief.

The Evaluation of Submissions

The AJP prides itself on a thorough, professional, and ethical refereeing process. All submissions are evaluated on their merits, and members of the editorial team strive to demonstrate high standards of honesty and integrity in selecting high quality work of general philosophical interest for publication in the journal. We expect referees to carry out their duties in a like manner, and we take care in curation of our panel of referees to ensure that our editorial team can secure expert and impartial advice. Authors can be assured that all of the referees used by AJP are peers and colleagues who are active participants in the field of research of their submission. 

To foster a fair and honest refereeing process, all Unsolicited Submissions to the AJP should be double-anonymised: neither the names nor institutional affiliations of authors are revealed to referees; likewise, referees remain anonymous to other referees and to the author in each particular case. Without the prior permission of the Editor, referees will not show to other people material supplied to them for evaluation. All published submissions have been anonymously reviewed by at least two referees and a member of the Editorial Team. On occasion, the Editor may call upon the advice of Editorial Board members; in such cases, the above provisions pertaining to referees also apply to Editorial Board members.

The evaluation process has up to eight stages, as follows:

1. Initial review of the manuscript by the Editorial Assistant for compliance with minimum standards for submissions.
2. Preliminary evaluation and triage by the Editor. If submission initially promising, assignment of an Associate Editor and move to stage 3; otherwise move to stage 8.
3. Initial evaluation by an Associate Editor. If positive, selection and invitation of potential expert independent referees and move to stage 4, otherwise move to stage 7.
4. Initial referee evaluation. Move to stage 5.
5. Scrutiny of submission and initial referee report by Associate Editor; if submission has potential in that light, move to stage 6; otherwise move to stage 7.
6. Subsequent referee evaluation. Move to stage 7.
7. Evaluation by Associate Editor on the basis of report(s) and their own engagement with the submission. If sufficient to make a recommendation, do so and move to stage 8; otherwise seek further advice and return to stage 6.
8. Evaluation by Editor on the basis of Associate Editor recommendation, any reports and their own engagement with the submission and other submissions. If sufficient to make a decision, do so and communicate verdict to author; if not, seek further clarity from Associate Editor [return manuscript to stage 7], or solicit advice from Editorial Board members and return to stage 8.

As authors may appreciate, it can take some time for a submission to wind its way through these stages, and should only expect a rapid turnaround in the case of a decision to reject after stages 1–3. We believe our process is fair and thorough even if other approaches could potentially be quicker. We cannot unfortunately guarantee any particular timeframe for the evaluation of submissions, as with any process involving significant amounts of volunteer labour.

If the Editor's initial decision is positive, it will either be 'revise and resubmit' or 'conditional acceptance'. In the case of revise and resubmit, authors should submit a revision of the manuscript taking into consideration any comments by the referees and the editor, and providing a summary of their responses and the resulting changes to the manuscript. A revised and resubmitted manuscript will go through a streamlined version of the above process, skipping immediately to stage 6, where original referees are invited to consider the revision. 

A 'conditional acceptance' means that the paper will be accepted, conditional on the author making any requested final changes, and supplying an appropriately formatted manuscript to enter production. The Editor reserves the right not to proceed with publication of conditionally accepted submissions where the author does not supply a final version conforming to Journal style. At the point at which a satisfactory manuscript is accepted, the Editor will issue a verdict of 'accept' and at that point the paper can be regarded as forthcoming, though it may take some time to go through production and appear online and eventually be assigned to a print issue.

Feedback to Authors

While there can be no guarantee which applies to every individual case, it is editorial policy to provide authors with timely decisions and helpful comments. Our team of referees often provide invaluable advice to help authors in improving their thoughts and their manner of communicating them, and we are grateful to referees for their efforts in this regard.

We are not able to engage in discussion with authors on the merits of their paper or responses to the referees, and editorial verdicts are final. 

The pressure of submissions is now such that a significant number of manuscripts are rejected after initial consideration by the editorial team without being sent to referees. In this sort of case comments are by necessity brief, and may be limited to indicating a key weakness of the submission or less. It is hoped the quick turnaround may compensate authors for less detailed comments.

Comments on the Grounds for Decisions

Authors should note that positive referees' reports are a necessary but not sufficient condition for acceptance. Authors should also note that referees can provide confidential comments directly to the editorial team, and that the reports prepared for consumption by authors may not reflect all aspects of a referee's opinion of a submission.   

The standard of submissions is high, and we do not have space to publish all of the good papers we receive. In reaching a decision, the editor may consider the balance of topics in the journal, patterns in the overall body of submissions, the accessibility and novelty of a submission, the significance and importance of the submission, the appeal of the submission to the AJP's audience, and the broader interests of the Journal.

Final decisions about acceptance will be taken by the Editor. Doubtless authors may disagree with the referees or the editors' verdict. We are not able to engage in discussion with authors on the merits of their paper or responses to the referees.  Authors do occasionally appeal the journal's verdict. Very often these appeals are based on substantive philosophical disagreements with the referees, and in such matters of academic judgment we typically side with our disinterested expert referees. However the editor would be interested in hearing if authors have evidence of any procedural issues with the refereeing process outlined above. 

The journal supplies guidance to referees that may also be of interest to authors.

Indicative Acceptance Rates

In recent years the Journal has been publishing only about 7–10% of papers submitted to it. About 60–70% of those submissions are rejected with one or fewer referee reports; about 20–25% of submissions are rejected on the basis of two or more referee reports. About 10–15% of submissions receive a verdict of (major or minor) revisions. The number of submissions that are accepted without a round of revisions is negligible. About 2/3 of manuscripts resubmitted after revision are eventually accepted. These figures are indicative and not updated in real time.

Since 2023, the Journal's contract with the publisher requires us to publish between 19–23 items per issue; we normally aim to publish about 12–15 articles and/or discussions (unsolicited submissions), and 6–8 book reviews or other solicited submissions per issue. We receive more than 700 unsolicited submissions per year.