Australasian Journal of Philosophy

Editorial Policy and Procedures

Editorial Policy

Scope and Approach

The Australasian Journal of Philosophy aims to publish contributions of high quality and originality 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 approach to philosophical argument that continues to be exemplified within its pages, and we are mindful of this tradition in our editorial judgments.

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.

Unsolicited Contributions

The Journal welcomes unsolicited contributions of two types: Articles and Discussion Notes, as follows.

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. The Journal will not consider 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.

    • 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 8,000 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.
    • 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 encouraging authors to aim at concision, the Journal will foster uptake and engagement with the articles it publishes.
    • 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 4,500 words (including abstract, notes, and references).
    DISCUSSION NOTES

    Discussion Notes are at most 3,000 words long (including notes, abstract, acknowledgements, and references). 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.

    Further Details on Unsolicited Contributions
    • The Journal considers all 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.
    • Both for articles and for discussion notes, any refereeing will be double-anonymised, as described in the Editorial Procedures.
      • Even if submission of a paper has been suggested by persons associated with the Journal, including members of the Editorial Team themselves, all pieces submitted as Articles or Discussion Notes are treated as Unsolicited Contributions and double-anonymously refereed in accordance with the Editorial Procedures.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    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. (This does not preclude the Journal's publication of occasional special issues based on calls for papers.)
      • The Journal has in the past been willing to consider submissions from organizers of symposia (of, say, two or three closely-related papers, to be reviewed en bloc and with referees asked to comment on the merits both of individual papers and of the symposium as a whole). However the pressure of submissions now precludes our considering such submissions.

    Solicited Contributions

    • The Journal will solicit contributions of three types: Critical Notices and Discussions, Book Reviews, and Book Notes (brief reviews). 
    • One of the Book Review Editors 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 Book Review Editor.
    • 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 or edited by philosophers resident in Australasia, provided that the Journal is sent a copy.
    • 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 doc/docx format, not pdf format. Reviews and Book Notes will not be externally refereed, but a Book Review Editor and/or the Editor may require changes to a Book Review or Book Note before it is to be published.
    • Critical Notices and Critical Discussions will be of important works in philosophy, and will be commissioned by the Editor. They will normally not exceed 5,000 words (including notes and bibliography), and be anonymously refereed. Members of the Editorial Board may, from time to time, make recommendations to the Editorial Team of books which might deserve a Critical Notice.
    • The Editor reserves the right not to proceed with publication of conditionally accepted submissions where the author does not supply a final version in conformity with Journal Style.

    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.

    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 often brief, and limited to indicating a key weakness of the submission. It is hoped the quick turnaround compensates authors for less detailed comments.

    Publication Priorities

    The Editor decides the order of appearance of accepted submissions. Priority may be given to Discussion Notes. In these cases, authors of the materials being commented on might be offered a right of reply (subject to the usual refereeing), on the understanding that timely publication of the Note will take priority over the desirability of including both Note and Reply in the same issue of the Journal.

    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.

    Editorial Procedures

    The Evaluation of Submissions

    To ensure its integrity, the refereeing process for all Unsolicited Contributions to the AJP is double-anonymised: the names and institutional affiliations of authors are revealed neither 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. 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 sequential stages, as follows:

    1. Initial review of the manuscript by the Editorial Assistant for compliance with minimum standards for submissions;
    2. Preliminary vetting by the Editor, and assignment of an Associate Editor;
    3. Initial evaluation by an Associate Editor, and selection of potential referees;
    4. Initial referee;
    5. Scrutiny of submission and initial referee report by a member of the Editorial Team;
    6. Second referee;
    7. Recommendation by Associate Editor on the basis of reports and their own evaluation of the submission. Subsequent referee reports may be sought at this stage, including the opinion of Editorial Board members
    8. Final decision by the Editor, and communication of verdict to author.

    A paper may be rejected, or returned to the corresponding author for revision, at any stage in this process. Successful completion of each stage will lead to the next.

    Authors should note that positive referees' reports are a necessary but not sufficient condition for acceptance. The standard of submissions is high, and we do not have space to publish all of the competent papers we receive. Final decisions about acceptance will be taken by the Editor. 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, and the broader interests of the Journal.

    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 5–10% 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.

    Conflicts of Interest

    The Journal's software prevents any person from input to, or even observation of, assessments or decisions concerning their own submissions.

    The Editor 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. The Editor will not participate in the evaluation of material submitted by a close colleague, joint grant holder, former student, etc.

    ©Australasian Association of Philosophy
    ACN 152 892 272 ABN 29 152 892 272
    Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software