Conatus - Journal of Philosophy relies on a double-blind peer-review process (both author/s and reviewer/s remain anonymous) to secure the quality, validity and academic integrity of its content.

1. Initial Assessment - Reviewer Assignment

All submitted manuscripts will be assessed by the Editor (or the Editors) to ensure on the one hand that they fall within the scope of the Journal, and on the other that they abide by the academic standards the Journal embraces. Those manuscripts that meet the Journal’s criteria will - by standard procedure that guarantees double blind review - be channeled to independent (to wit, not affiliated with the same institute as the author) expert reviewers, two at least, for anonymous peer review.

Book reviews, interviews, introductory notes or editorials (in the case of special issues) will be accepted for publication after being reviewed only by the Editor or Editors.

2. Reviewer Feedback - Editorial Decision

Reviewers provide detailed evaluations, including recommendations to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. Feedback focuses on the paper’s originality, clarity, argumentation, methodology, and contribution to philosophical scholarship. Based on reviewer reports, the Editor(s) make a final decision: accept, revise (major or minor), or reject. In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted. The final decision concerning the acceptance for publication rests with the Editor. These apply to all research papers submitted to the Journal.

3. Timeline for Peer Review

The standard peer-review process, including the Editor’s decision, typically spans 16 weeks from the date the Editor acknowledges receipt of the manuscript.