Decisions

Unfortunately, we do not offer feedback for desk rejections. However, desk rejections usually result because a paper falls into one of these categories:

• not academic philosophy;

• academic philosophy, but not enough philosophy of science;

• philosophy of science, but not engaged with issues of interest to contemporary philosophers of science;

• engages with issues of interest to contemporary philosophers of science, but insufficiently novel;

• engages with issues of interest to contemporary philosophers of science, but too narrow.

Desk rejections are decided on by at least two (and up to four) editors.

The good news (!): We took your paper seriously, as did the referees who volunteered their time to read your work. The final decision was based on at least two referee reports, the Associate Editor’s report, and a careful discussion by the Chief Editors—that is, at least five people were involved in making this decision.

First, note that sometimes referees will offer fairly devastating comments for the editors’ eyes only, but then try to be more constructive in their comments for authors.

Second, it’s not enough for a paper not to make any mistakes or to make a correct and novel point in order for it to be published in the BJPS (though these are good places to start!). We look for papers that make a novel contribution, where that contribution isn’t too narrow.

We ask referees to assess papers on five points, and only a paper that scores highly on all these points (or looks very close to doing so) will be pursued:

• Interest: Is this likely to be of interest to philosophers of science?

• Originality: Is this an original contribution to the literature?

• Importance: Is this an important contribution to the literature?

• Competence: Is this a highly competent contribution, namely, well researched and demonstrating sufficient mastery of the material discussed and the techniques employed?

• Scholarliness: Is it a sufficiently scholarly contribution, informed by the existing literature, including work that because of its author’s demographic or professional profile might be unfairly overlooked?

Co-Chief Editor Rob Rupert has written in more detail about rejection decisions in his How to Read Rejection: Advice for the Puzzled or Peeved.

Congratulations! These are rare!

You are strongly advised to take seriously the concerns raised by the referees. This does not mean slavishly following their instructions. For instance, you may think the referee has misunderstood your point (it happens!). You definitely should give some thought as to why a specialist in your area has misunderstood you in this way, and consider re-phrasing the relevant section to make your point more clearly. You should also explain the misunderstanding in your response to the referee. (Of course, they may not be convinced!)

We give authors twelve weeks for major and six weeks for minor revisions. If you need an extension, get in touch with the editorial office.

One health warning: We cannot guarantee that a revised paper will go back to the original referees. While it is always our preference to send resubmissions back to the original referees, we can only do so if the referee agrees. This may mean that you get a new set of comments from the new referee(s).

Former Co-Chief Editor Steven French has written in more detail about rejection decisions in his What to Do with a Revise and Resubmit.

Keep going! We believe in you! We do our very best not to string along authors with successive R&Rs. If we’ve given you the chance to resubmit, it’s because we think your paper is doing something interesting (but we do take the referees’ reports seriously and you should too).

A health warning is required here: We can and do reject papers that have gone through (sometimes multiple) revisions. We never do this lightly; we issue R&R decisions because we hope to be able to publish the revised paper. But if the editors judge that a paper is not moving things forward in a significant enough way, because the author fails to take seriously a referee’s concerns or the author and referee reach an impasse and the editors determine that the referee has made the stronger case, then the paper will be rejected.

And as before, we cannot guarantee that a revised paper will go back to the original referees. While it is always our preference to send resubmissions back to the original referees, we can only do so if the referee agrees. This may mean that you get a new set of comments from the new referee(s).