Instructions for Reviewers
The first main purpose of a referee report is to help a journal editor to decide about a submission. Therefore, the referees should aim at writing a report that is addressed to the editor to help them reach a well-informed decision on the submitted manuscript.
The editors of EuJAP are strongly committed to the idea that the second main purpose of the refereeing process, whenever it is possible, to provide advice to authors on how to improve their manuscripts. It is thus expected that criticisms are expressed in a constructive and respectful manner.
Elements of a good report should include:
1. An outline of the paper with a special emphasis on the main thesis of the paper, and the main line of arguments for it.
2. A commentary indicating the merits and weakness of the paper regarding the rigor in the description of the relevant positions and arguments, quality of the offered arguments, and novelty of the contribution and possible impact in the relevant debate.
We currently operate a hybrid system in which reviewer reports can be submitted either by email to the editor or directly through EuJAP by logging into our OJS system. If you choose to submit a reviewer report via email, please use our reviewer report form, which can be downloaded here. Please write your recommendations on a submission (whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected) in the commentary box reserved for editors.
Use the space for authors to write a more substantive report on the merits and demerits of the paper, and recommendations on how it can be improved (if the referees feel this can be done).
The editors reserve the right to edit reports that do not respect these guidelines.
Our policy follows a double-blind review process. However, before deciding whether a paper will undergo external review (i.e., be reviewed by a referee outside the core editorial team who can adhere to the double-blind policy), the editors evaluate the submission based on several criteria. These include whether the paper fits the scope of EuJAP, has the potential to advance a debate in contemporary analytic philosophy, adheres to standard norms of academic writing—particularly those of analytic philosophy—and passes a plagiarism detection test. If the handling editor concludes that the submission does not meet one or more of these criteria, they may decide not to send the paper for external review and return it to the author.
For more detailed instructions on how to write a good referee report, the readers are directed to blog posts by Professor John Greco here and Professor Elizabeth Hannon here (this one is especially helpful for young scholars).
If a paper passes the initial inspection by the handling editor and proceeds to external review, the following procedure applies: Papers are typically reviewed by two independent reviewers. To be accepted for publication, a paper must receive two positive reviews.
In cases of mixed reviews—for instance, if one review is positive and the other negative—the handling editor may decide to reject the paper. Alternatively, if the editor feels unable to make a decision based on the mixed reviews, they may seek a third review to break the tie. In such cases, the third reviewer is usually provided with the original review reports and asked to help the editor determine which evaluation holds more weight, considering the overall quality of the paper. If there are mixed reviews—such as one reviewer suggesting minor revisions and another suggesting major revisions—the submission will typically be treated as requiring major revisions.
The typical review process begins with a first round of reviews. If the reviewers recommend major or minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be sent back to the original reviewers for another round of evaluation. Typically, there will not be more than two rounds of reviews, meaning that a final decision about the manuscript will usually be reached after the second round.
Norms for publishing with AI
The Journal does not exclude the use of AI generated text. However, all authors (including reviewers and editors) take full responsibility for its factual accuracy and the proper acknowledgement of sources. In the acknowledgement section of your manuscript or the title page (depending on the submission/publication stage) or in other kind of reports you must identify the AI that was used, and the extent of the contribution. For instance, ChatGPT (version or the date when the AI was used).
The contribution level of the AI can be defined as follows:
- negligible – means the AI only made minor changes to the manuscript’s style or grammar;
- modest – means the AI made important suggestions but was not the primary driver of the research or had an essential role in writing the manuscript;
- substantial – means the AI made several crucial suggestions that shaped the research and the manuscript could not have been completed without it.
If the contribution of the AI is “negligible”, there is no requirement to mention its usage during the submission or review and publication processes. However, for any other level of contribution, it is expected that authors will report the extent of AI usage. In cases where the AI contribution is “substantial”, authors, reviewers, and editors should provide a comprehensive description of the AI usage and its contributions in a narrative format.
