REVIEWERS

Conatus - Journal of Philosophy relies on a double peer review system, so as to ensure the quality and academic integrity of the published material. To that purpose all manuscripts are channeled to independent (that is, not affiliated with the same institute as the author) expert reviewers.

The Journal invites professionals, experts and scholars to register with it as reviewers, and thus become members of this growing, active international community on the one hand, and enjoy the fruits of partnering with a high impact philosophical journal on the other.

1. How to register as reviewer

To register as a reviewer, please see the Call for Reviewers, fill in the Reviewer's Application Form, and return it to the Managing Editor at conatus@philosophy.uoa.gr.

2. Why become a reviewer for Conatus

• All reviewers will be included in the Journal's Board of Reviewers.
• Each reviewer will also be receiving on an annual basis an official personalized Reviewer's Certificate mentioning the number of reviews completed for the Journal.
• Reviewers can built their profile on Clarivate Analytics (formerly Publons); their reviewing activity will be instantly visible, and their Web of Science profile may also be integrated with their ORCID iD. This way reviewers will be able to track, verify, and showcase their peer review and editorial contributions for Conatus.
• The journal's reviewers are prioritized as contributing authors, and are also eligible to be Guest Editors of Special Issues of the Journal upon suggestion to the Editors.

3. Getting recognition for your review

To get recognition for your reviews on Web of Science, first, and in case you don’t already have one, create a Web of Science Researcher Profile (or log in with ORCID) and then manually add your reviews either by forwarding the review confirmation email to reviews@webofscience.com or, preferably, by using the online form in your profile account. For reviews from integrated journals, you may also be sent a private link to claim your review after submission.

Getting recognition for your reviews on Web of Science (formerly Publons) helps you track, verify, and showcase your peer review contributions to demonstrate disciplinary expertise. This provides a verifiable record for promotion and funding applications, even if the reviews are anonymous and the manuscript is not published. The service protects your anonymity by typically displaying only the journal name and year of review on public profiles. 

• Verifiable record of expertise:

You get an official record of your peer review activities, which can be used as evidence of your expertise for job applications, performance reviews, and grant applications. 

• Proof of contribution:

It helps showcase your contribution to scholarly communication beyond just authorship. 

• Anonymous recognition:

You can receive recognition for your work while maintaining anonymity. The service protects your identity and adheres to journal policies, so review comments are not displayed publicly by default. 

• Automatic tracking:

For participating journals, reviews can be automatically added to your profile, saving you manual entry time. 

• Recognition for unpublished reviews:

The service credits you for reviews even if the manuscript is never published.

4. Responsibilities of reviewers

• Reviewers shall keep all papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
• Reviewers shall inform the Editorial Board of any conflict of interest, or if the double blind nature of the peer-review has been compromised.
• Reviewers shall complete their reviews within the allowed timeframe.
• Reviewers should be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
• The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board members are responsible for making decisions on the content of the manuscripts submitted to the journal.
• The journal uses a double blind peer review process. The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board shall not reveal either the identity of authors of manuscripts to the reviewers, or the identity of reviewers to authors.
• Editorial Board members shall not use content disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the author's prior written consent.
• Editors shall conduct ethical and fair investigation into ethical complaints.
• Editors shall check each submitted manuscript for plagiarism prior to double blind peer review.