Double-Anonymous Peer Review
The JPE's review process involves a double-anonymous, review process, with at least two referees, for every publication, including symposium papers and book reviews.
The purpose of refereeing a manuscript is to help editors assess the quality of a manuscript from the perspective of the relevant scholarly community and to provide an author with some helpful feedback in order to further revise their paper for possible publication with the Journal of Philosophy of Emotion. Furthermore, only papers that already meet a certain level of quality will be sent to referees for peer review.
When reviewing a paper, referees are asked not only to demonstrates their expertise and scholarly rigor in a particular area through their review, but to also demonstrate their ability to work with other scholars as part of a cooperative enterprise. Authors may also be asked, when appropriate, to respond to referee reports and vice versa prior to a final decision being made.
The JPE values investing the time and energy in helping each member of our community grow as professional scholars. So, referee reports and author responses may also be shared among other referees as teaching tools in order to help our referees continue to improve. So, we ask that referees and responding authors always maintain a professional tone in their correspondences. The JPE, however, will refrain from seeking reviews from referees who consistently fail to meet the standard of quality set by the JPE.
Furthermore, any article manuscript that has been submitted by any staff member, editorial board member, or editorial advisory board member will undergo the same anonymous peer-review process that any other submitted manuscript would undergo, and a decision regarding that manuscript will be made without the author's input or consideration of the author's association with the JPE.
In agreeing to review a manuscript or symposium, a referee agrees to the following:
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents belonging to the authors. Referees should treat all information assessed during a review as strictly confidential, and not to disclose any information relating to the manuscript under review to individuals that are external to a review process.
Is aware of the JPE’s mission, audience, and policies.
Is knowledgeable and qualified in regard to the subject matter that is to be reviewed.
Is able and willing to provide a courteous, unbiased, impartial, fair, relevant, constructive, and rigorous review.
Is able and willing to complete the review in a timely manner. (If extenuating circumstances prevent a reviewer from returning a review within the requested timeframe, the reviewer should alert the editorial office as soon as possible).
Referees also agree to NOT do any of the following:
Agree to review a manuscript if there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest of any kind, including financial, institutional, philosophical, or personal in nature.
Reveal, cite, or use any of the author’s work contained in the manuscript without the appropriate consent of the author.
Engage the review assistance of another appropriately qualified colleague.
Suggest any edits to an author's text that is more so about the author's voice or what seems to be "awkward" sounding to you (the referee) rather than containing any grammatical, spelling, phrase misuse, citation, or similar error or inaccuracy. The JPE believes in supporting the diversity of voices, and do not encourage any changes where there is no need, in accordance with the Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy.
The following are the conditions and criteria that we ask all referees to abide by when reviewing a manuscript:
1) Referees will have two (2) weeks to accept a paper for review.
2) Referees will have six (6) weeks to complete their review. Please note that this is no indication of the turnaround time for decisions to authors, and we appreciate the author's patience while the JPE editorial team works on providing the author with high-quality reviews and a decision in a timely manner.
3) Referees are welcome to provide freely formed reports and make comments directly in the file for the manuscript that they are refereeing.
4) Referees will be asked to attend to the following considerations when writing their review:
Is the content of the manuscript consistent with the JPE’s mission?
Does the manuscript address an interest, concern, problem, or question in the area of philosophy of emotion?
Does the manuscript present an interesting or unique solution, argument, method, or perspective in the area of philosophy of emotion?
Do the section headings make sense?
Is the content well organized?
Is the author’s writing clear, concise, and precise?
Is the content of the manuscript rigorous in terms of its scholarship and argumentation?
5) Please also read the Submission Instructions to further assist you with your review.
6) Referees should also assess manuscripts without giving undue weight to the author's style or fluency, although we ask authors to ensure that referees would not have to worry too much about this concern by having their manuscripts appropriately copy edited prior to submitting their paper.
Once all referee reports, and any necessary author responses, have been received by the editor managing a manuscript's review process, that editor will make a recommendation regarding the manuscript's acceptance, and a final decision will be made by the editor-in-chief, possibly in consultation with members of the editorial advisory board. The author will then be notified of the final decision by the editor managing their paper's review process.
Revised manuscripts that have been resubmitted after an initial decision recommending a revise and resubmit, or a rejection, will be initially reviewed by the editor who managed the review of the initial manuscript or the editor-in-chief. If the revised manuscript is then recommended for peer review, that editor may manage the peer review process for the revised paper or a new editor may be assigned, contingent on whether the previous editor or a new editor would provide the most fair management of the revised paper through its peer review process.