Homepage » REVIEWERS » Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers


The quality of any peer-reviewed publication depends on the one hand on the quality of the manuscripts submitted, and on the other on the quality of the reviews furnished to the Editors; in that sense Conatus - Journal of Philosophy looks up to the journal's reviewers as the most trusted partners and invaluable collaborators.

Before accepting to review a manuscript

Reviewing a manuscript is most of the times quite demanding, time consuming, and sometimes tricky. To avoid wasting time on manuscripts that could not (or should not) be reviewed, reviewers are requested to ensure in advance that:

  • the manuscript that has been suggested is within their field of expertise,
  • they will be able to complete the review in a timely manner, and in any case within the time limits set by the Editors.
  • there is no conflict of interests or any other reason of bias, such as origin, religious, political or other viewpoint of the author, etc.

Reviewing an article

The purpose of peer review is twofold: on the one hand to ensure that only articles that meet certain quality standards will be published, and on the other to improve the quality of the papers that are accepted for publication. To these intent reviewers are advised to focus on:

  • whether the article suits the scope of Conatus - Journal of Philosophy,
  • the article's originality,
  • the clarity of the presentation,
  • the depth of discussion and research,
  • the consistency of the argumentation,
  • whether the grammar and the syntax used is sound,
  • whether the author has observed the guidelines for authors and the journal's publication ethics.

Writing a review

Reviews should be brief but backed up with constructive arguments, as well as suggestions for improvements based on the content of the manuscript. Reviewers are strictly advised to avoid pejorative language, as well as hostile, derogatory, accusatory and biased comments.

There is - and there may be - no suggested word count for reviews. However, the more detailed a review is, the more helpful it is to the author, but also to the Editor; on the other hand, thoroughness is not at odds with brevity.

Submitting the review to the Editor

To ensure an anonymous, impartial peer review, the Journal relies on an OJS online platform. Reviewers should submit their reviews to the Editor only through the platform, and by no other means whatsoever, together with their recommendation: a. accept, b. decline, c. revise and resubmit, d. revisions required. The journal's policy favors d. instead of c., provided that the reviewer wavers between these two options.

Making the most of your review

Reviewing is not about consuming one's time in vain; on the contrary, it is about building up one's academic profile and reputation. Conatus - Journal of Philosophy is registered with Web of Science's Publons; this allows the journal's reviewers to create a profile on Publons, endorse the journal, and list their reviews. To do so they only need to present to Publons the acknowledgement email they have received upon completing the review from the Editor, and refer to the publication data.