Australasian Journal of Philosophy

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 six sequential stages, as follows:

  • preliminary vetting by the Editor 
  • initial evaluation by an Associate Editor
  • refereeing, 1
  • refereeing, 2
  • scrutiny of submission and referees' reports by a member of the Editorial Team; further referee reports may be sought at this stage, including the opinion of Editorial Board members
  • final decision by the Editor

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.

In recent years the Journal has been accepting only about 5% of submissions.

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