Radical Philosophy Review

Article types

The Radical Philosophy Review accepts submissions of original, unsolicited researrch articles of no more than 10,000 words. In addition, the journal accepts submissions of original, unsolicited book reviews of no more than 2,000 words.

Submission requirements

Manuscript Format

• Submissions should be anonymized, with all direct or indirect references to the author removed.
• Citation style should follow The Chicago Manual of Style with a reference list and only short-title citations in the footnotes.. A helpful resource on The Chicago Manual of Style is available here.
• The maximum word count for a research article is 10,000 words. For a book review it is 2,000 words.
• Please submit files in 12 point, Times New Roman font, double-spaced.
• Authors of article manuscripts and book reviews must confirm that they have not used generative AI to contribute to the content or citations of manuscripts submitted to Radical Philosophy Review. Any other author use of AI tools must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission.

Additional required files

In addition to the submitted article, please include a separate file with an abstract of no more than 125 words, a short author bio of no more than 75 words, and e-mail and mailing address.

Publication Ethics Statement

The editorial team of the Radical Philosophy Review is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to confirm a chain of reasoning or experimental result. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors should evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their academic merit and the journal’s mission. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper.

The Publisher will respond to alleged or proven cases of research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism in close collaboration with the editors. The publisher will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question if necessary. This may include the publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Upon submission, articles will receive initial review by the editors. Those submissions deemed appropriate for publication in the Radical Philosophy Review will then be reviewed expert reviewers in the relevant subfield. All articles will receive a decision of “accept,” “accept with minor revisions,” “revise and resubmit,” or “reject.”

Publication details

Final publication decisions are typically made within 3 months. Once final proofs are approved by the author, research articles are typically published in an “online first” format prior to print publication.

Rights and Permissions

Copyright to Radical Philosophy Review is held by the journal. Permissions are managed by the Philosophy Documentation Center.

Authors are free to reuse their own articles in other publications they write or edit - no further permission is required. We only require acknowledgment of the original publication in Radical Philosophy Review.

Subscribers and authorized users may make up to 100 print copies of single articles for any personal, instructional, or non-commercial purpose. No further permission is required.
Permission is required to make more than 100 print copies or for other republication in any anthology, textbook, monograph, journal, database, or web site. Contact us for more information.

Philosophy Documentation Center
Attn: Rights & Permissions
P.O. Box 7147
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-7147 - USA

E-mail: permissions@pdcnet.org
Fax: (+01) 434-220-3301

Open Access Archiving Policy

Authors may post a non-formatted version of their article as submitted to Radical Philosophy Review to open access web sites. This means a version in a format that does not duplicate the look and feel of the journal (such as ASCII TXT, HTML, Word). We cannot grant permission for the use of any file format that reproduces page images from the journal (such as TIF, PDF, JPEG). Posting a non-formatted version of the paper allows authors to make their work more widely known without asking a non-profit journal to bear the cost and risk of free distribution.

This archiving policy is classified as GREEN in the SHERPA/RoMEO database.

Electronic Preservation

Preservation of Radical Philosophy Review in electronic format has been assured through PORTICO and the CLOCKSS archive.