Appeals

Philosophy of Science receives many more high-quality submissions than the journal is able to publish. Typically, submissions are evaluated by multiple reviewers and multiple editors before a final decision is reached, and reviewers often provide additional confidential comments to the editors in addition to their comments to the author. Thus, while it is often the case that authors disagree with, or feel they could provide compelling replies to, the reviewer feedback they receive, they often have only partial information regarding the decision on their manuscript. The editors attempt to synthesize all of the information available, including their own assessments of submissions, to reach a judgment. For these reasons, the journal is not able to revisit negative decisions merely because an author disagrees with the reviewers’ comments or disagrees with the editors' judgment in light of the comments the author has seen.

Appeals will be considered only when the author can provide evidence that journal policies have not been followed. Examples include cases in which an author has evidence that an undisclosed conflict of interest may have affected a reviewer or editor's judgment, or where there is evidence that a failure of anonymization may have influenced the process. In such cases, the author should contact the Managing Editor (journal@philsci.org), who will bring the appeal to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief, who will revisit the case in light of the new evidence provided by the author. In such cases, additional information may be sought from other reviewers, Associate Editors, or Editorial Board members. If the Editor-in-Chief recuses him or herself due to a possible conflict, this process will be overseen by a non-conflicted Associate Editor or member of the Editorial Board.