Article Peer Review and Acceptance Process

The Journal of Philosophy is founded on the principles of keeping pace with international publishing standards, built upon a commitment to peer review and open access. To this end, the journal has adopted a double-blind peer review process. In this model, neither the author is informed of the reviewer's identity, nor are the reviewers made aware of the name and affiliation of the author(s). This ensures that the review is conducted purely on scientific merit, free from any prejudice or bias.

Works registered in the system are sent for peer review if they align with the journal's specialized scope and meet the standards set by the journal. Upon final approval by the editor, the article enters the publication process.

The Journal of Philosophy is committed to the highest standards of peer review. The journal, respecting the ethics of publication, adheres to the policies and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and complies with the executive bylaw of the Law on the Prevention and Combating of Fraud in Scientific Works. In handling potential cases of misconduct and retractions, it follows the regulations of the aforementioned committee. All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality of the research methodology and argumentation.

After an article is submitted by the author(s) through the journal's management system, it is initially reviewed and studied by the journal office, a journal specialist, and the editor-in-chief (within a maximum of one week). Therefore, we kindly request that you carefully study the instructions and the "Guide for Authors," prepare your manuscript according to the guide in the Persian section, and then submit it. Following the initial evaluation of the article by the journal's executive director, and upon the editor-in-chief's approval in the first stage, the manuscript is sent to respected reviewers for evaluation and peer review.

The peer review and acceptance process for the Journal of Philosophy is as follows:

1. Receipt of Article: The article is received via the journal's website, and a confirmation of receipt is sent to the author(s).
2. Initial Editorial Review: The article is sent to members of the editorial board or a section editor.
3. Editorial Board Assessment: The article is reviewed in an editorial board meeting or through an online review process. The possible outcomes are: a. Rejection: The article is rejected in the editorial board meeting due to low priority. b. Non-compliance: The article does not align with the journal's content and scope. c. Poor Quality: The article is of low quality, etc. The author(s) will be informed of the decision along with the relevant reasons.
4. Consideration of Initial Revisions (Pre-Review): The article may be returned to the esteemed authors for initial revisions. After the authors implement the revisions suggested by the editorial board (subject to approval), the article will be sent for peer review.
5. Sending to Reviewers: The article is sent to a minimum of two to three reviewers.
6. Receipt of Review Results: The review results can be one of three types: a. Negative (Reject) b. Positive (Accept) c. Revisions Required
7. Referral to Editorial Board for Decision: The review results are referred to the editorial board for evaluation and final decision-making. This leads to three possible outcomes: a. Rejection of Article: Due to negative reviews (e.g., two negative reviews). b. Sending to a Third Reviewer: In cases of conflicting reviews (e.g., one negative review and one request for revisions). c. Sending to Author for Revisions: In cases where reviewers have requested revisions (e.g., two reviews requesting revisions).
8. Receipt of Revisions from Authors: The revised manuscript is received from the author(s).
9. Sending Revised Article to Reviewers for Compliance Check: The author's revised article is sent back to the respected reviewers for a compliance check. This can result in three outcomes: a. Rejection of Revisions b. Acceptance c. Further Revisions Required The subsequent actions are as follows: a. The article is returned to the authors for further revisions. b. If all revisions have been adequately implemented, acceptance is granted. c. The article will be rejected if the revisions are not implemented in accordance with the reviewers' comments.

Flowchart of Article Submission to the Journal of Philosophy

(Note: A visual flowchart would typically be included here. The text below describes the flowchart's logic.)

[Start] | V 1. Article Submission via Website | V 2. Initial Editorial Check (by Office & Editor-in-Chief) | V 3. Editorial Board Review | V Decision Point:

• Path A: Rejection (Due to low priority, non-compliance, or poor quality) --> [End: Notify Author]
• Path B: Request for Initial Revisions --> Sent to Author --> Author Revises --> Goes to Step 4 (Peer Review)
• Path C: Approved for Peer Review --> Goes to Step 4 (Peer Review) | V 4. Peer Review (Sent to 2-3 Reviewers) | V 5. Receipt of Reviewer Comments | V 6. Editorial Board Decision on Reviews | Decision Point:
• Path A: Reject Article (e.g., two negative reviews) --> [End: Notify Author]
• Path B: Send to Third Reviewer (Conflicting reviews) --> Goes back to Step 5 (await third review)
• Path C: Send to Author for Revisions --> Goes to Step 7 | V 7. Author Implements Revisions & Resubmits | V 8. Revised Article Sent to Reviewers for Compliance Check | V Decision Point:
• Path A: Revisions Rejected / Further Revisions Required --> Sent back to Author (Step 7)
• Path B: Revisions Accepted --> Goes to Step 9
• Path C: Revisions Not Implemented Correctly --> [End: Reject Article] | V 9. Final Acceptance | V 10. Article Sent for Copyediting & Production | V [End: Article Published]