If you have them, any comments about your recommendation should go here (and not in the Comments to the Author box)
The BJPS operates a triple-anonymised peer review system. If you know or think you know who the author is, please email the editorial office at bjps@thebsps.org. Do not indicate or speculate about the author’s identity anywhere in your report.
In the experience of the Editors, speculation about the identity of an author often goes wrong. Thus, if you have what amounts to no more than a strong suspicion concerning the author’s identity, the Editors will ask that you continue to act as a referee unless you judge that your suspicion itself causes a conflict of interest.
Comments to the Editor
Please enter any comments you have about your recommendation in the Comments to the Editors box
When considering your recommendation, these are the five key questions about which we would welcome your opinion
Interest
Is this likely to be interesting 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?
If your recommendation is that the paper ought to be accepted or rejected, please let us know your reasons
‘‘This paper looks good to me—accept!’’
‘This paper makes an original and important contribution to a live debate—accept!’
Comments to the Author
If your recommendation is major/minor revisions, please give a clear indication of what improvements you would like to see
‘Section 5 is underdeveloped.’
‘Section 5 is underdeveloped in the following way…’
Please discuss the paper and not the author; avoid derisive and insulting comments
‘The author argues…’
‘The paper argues…’
‘The author does not seem to be aware of…’
‘The paper should engage with…’
More information on how to write useful referee reports can be found here
The Editors are grateful for the work of our referees and we hope these instructions are helpful
If you have any queries, please email the editorial office