Peer review process

Peer review processes

Section policies:

  1. Articles: These should be research articles that primarily (though not exclusively) address issues related to contemporary philosophical discourse. Articles must be between 5,000 and 14,000 words in length and must be written in accordance with the journal’s focus and scope, as well as the editorial and ethical guidelines set out in the sections: ‘General Editorial Guidelines’ and ‘Code of Ethics’. They may form part of a special issue or the miscellaneous section.
  2. Critical reviews: These should be works that analyse and highlight the importance and relevance of a recent philosophical publication. The length must be between 950 and 3,000 words maximum. They must be prepared in accordance with the journal’s editorial and ethical guidelines as set out in the sections: “General Editorial Guidelines” and “Code of Ethics”. Reviews of books or articles published preferably within the last five years will be accepted.
  3. Featured translations and interviews: This section is intended to recognise the production of a high-quality translation of an article, book chapter or lecture written in another language. It includes both unpublished translations and revised versions deemed worthy of consideration for publication, based on their thorough terminological review and translation approach. Submitted works must adhere to the journal’s editorial and ethical guidelines. The possibility of publishing interviews of contemporary philosophical significance will also be considered.
  4. Cátedra ApareSER: This will be an event whose frequency and organisation depend on the availability of resources at the host university (BUAP) and other collaborating bodies. The primary aim of Cátedra ApareSER is to create spaces for philosophical dialogue in relation to discussions published in the journal.

Peer review process:

All submissions to the journal will undergo a rigorous peer review process (double-blind), carried out by international researchers specialising in the topics and discussions addressed in the respective papers. Under the peer review system, both the author’s name and those of the two reviewers will remain anonymous throughout the evaluation and selection process; this ensures complete impartiality and avoids any potential conflict of interest. Reviewers may: 1) accept the paper without changes; 2) accept the paper with minor changes; 3) accept the paper with major changes, subject to a second review by the same reviewers; 4) reject the paper. Only in the event of one review recommending acceptance ‘without changes’ and another recommending ‘rejection’ will a third review be requested. Whatever the outcome of the review, the authors will be informed in a timely and appropriate manner.