Review Policy

The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (jesp) is a peer-reviewed online journal in moral, social, political, and legal philosophy. The journal welcomes submissions of articles and discussion notes in any of these and related fields of research. The journal welcomes work in the history of ethics that bears directly on topics of contemporary interest but does not publish work of purely historical interest.

jesp aspires to be the leading venue for the best new work in the fields that it covers and applies a correspondingly high editorial standard. It is the view of the editorial team that this standard does not preclude publishing work that is critical in nature, provided that it is constructive, well argued, current, and of sufficiently general interest.

Articles: Although jesp considers and occasionally publishes longer pieces, the editorial team prefers articles that do not exceed 12,000 words (including notes and references). Articles longer than 12,000 words are evaluated according to a proportionally higher standard. Manuscripts under 3,000 words should be submitted as discussion notes.

Discussion Notes: Discussion notes should not exceed 3,000 words (including notes and references). Discussion notes are often replies to previously published work. They need not engage with work that was published in jesp, although such discussions are especially welcome. Discussion notes can also offer concise new defenses of a familiar view, advance a novel argument, or otherwise make some contribution that does not require more lengthy development.

Inclusive Philosophy: jesp endorses and abides by the Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy, which seek to address the structural inequality between native and nonnative English speakers in academic philosophy.

All article and discussion note submissions undergo a triple-anonymous peer-review process. Neither the editors and associate editors nor the external reviewers know the identity of authors. When manuscripts are submitted, they are checked by the managing editor to ensure that they conform to jesp’s requirements pertaining to anonymization. Manuscripts that do not conform to these requirements are returned to authors so that they can be properly anonymized. External reviewers who know or believe that they know the identity of an author are asked to decline the invitation to review without explanation, since providing that explanation might itself compromise triple-anonymous review.

Internal Review: Each properly anonymized submission is first reviewed by one of jesp’s editors-in-chief. Manuscripts that pass this initial review are then assigned to an associate editor for a second review. More than half are rejected by the editorial team during this internal review process. The editors-in-chief and associate editors are not required to provide feedback to authors regarding desk rejections but are free to do so.

External Review: Manuscripts that pass the internal review are then sent out to two external reviewers by an associate editor. Occasionally, a paper may be rejected on the basis of a single negative external review, especially when the associate editor has trouble securing a second. In cases where it proves difficult to find a second external reviewer, the associate editor can opt instead to secure one or more additional internal reviews, by asking other members of jesp’s editorial team to review the manuscript. Normally, however, two external reviews are required for a decision at this stage. Submissions that receive two negative external reviews are rejected as a matter of policy. For all other submissions, the associate editor decides whether the manuscript should be rejected, revised for resubmission, or accepted.

Revisions: Normally, revised manuscripts are sent back to the same external reviewers. This is not always possible or desirable, however. Once the external review of a revised manuscript has been completed, the associate editor reads the submission along with the external reviews and makes a decision to accept, request further revisions, or reject.

Approval: Although all associate editor decisions are sent to the editors-in-chief for approval, the associate editors’ verdicts are essentially final. The editors-in-chief will reverse a decision at this stage only in exceptional cases, such as one where there has been a clear failure to apply the journal’s policies and procedures.

Correspondence: In order to ensure anonymous review, all correspondence pertaining to the submission process or to manuscripts under review should be directed to the managing editor, who can be reached at jespmanagingeditor@gmail.com. Do not write directly to the editors-in-chief or associate editors. Doing so will compromise anonymous review, and your submission may be rejected on that basis.

Manuscripts rejected during the internal review process usually receive a decision within six weeks of submission. Although the editorial team strives to provide all authors with an initial decision within three months of submission, the review process may take longer, especially given the difficulty of securing two suitable external reviewers.