Submissions

Author Guidelines

Submission Guidelines

Submitted manuscripts should be PDF files prepared for anonymous review and must contain no identifying information (see Review below).

Submissions need not conform to the journal’s style guide unless and until they are accepted for publication. There is no lower or upper word limit, but lengthier submissions should offer correspondingly greater scholarly value. Authors may have more than one manuscript under review simultaneously, but no more than two as the first/corresponding author. Submission of a manuscript implies that the work described has not been published before; that it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else.

1. The manuscript is anonymized

As authors, please do not forget to remove identifying metadata (including in your pdf but also supplementary materials) and only include anonymized links to pre-registrations or supplementary materials. We recommend the Open Science Framework (OSF) – it is a free, open-source project management tool for researchers, acting as a collaboration tool and a long-term data repository.

When citing or referring to their own work, we encourage authors not to blind their own manuscripts but to refer to their own publications in the same way as they refer to other people’s work.

2. Submit all additional materials

We strictly adhere to the principles of Open Science. All materials relevant to assessing the quality of the work, such as code, data, and any other relevant information, should be accessible for editors and reviewers. Authors may decide if they wish to upload such material to the submission system or share a link in their manuscript. If the pre-registration and the paper do not contain all stimuli (e.g., vignettes), authors are expected to also share the stimuli.

After the manuscript is accepted for publication, code, data, and stimuli need to be made publically available.

3. AI use disclosure

The responsible use of AI tools in research is welcomed, but the accuracy and integrity of a manuscript remain the responsibility of the author(s).The use of AI must be acknowledged “to the extent required for understanding, verifying, replicating, or otherwise judging the credibility of the work” (Porsdam Mann et al., 2025). Authors are required to submit a separate “AI use disclosure” file. We encourage authors to use the following template:

Template AI use disclosure
 “Any use of AI in this manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines for the use and acknowledgement of AI in academic research. Each author has made a substantial contribution to the work, which has been thoroughly vetted for accuracy, and assumes responsibility for the integrity of their contributions. [Optional, as needed to allow reproducibility and judgments of credibility: additional details on LLM use and its impact].”

This template is adapted from:
Porsdam Mann, S., Vazirani, A. A., Aboy, M., et al. Guidelines for ethical use and acknowledgement of large language models in academic writing. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6, 1272–1274 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00922-7

4. Ethical Approval (Suggested)

Manuscripts reporting research involving human participants, personal data, or employing methods that raise potential ethical concerns are expected to include a statement confirming that all procedures were conducted in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines (for example, adherence to the GDPR and/or approval by a university ethics committee).
The journal reserves the right to request ethical approval or further clarification where ethical compliance is unclear or where aspects of the research raise concerns.

5. Conflict of Interests

Author(s) must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the research. If no conflicts exist, authors should explicitly state that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.

6. CRediT Roles (Mandatory for Co-authored Manuscripts)

During the submission process, authors are required to specify the contributions made by each co-author using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). Contributions may include Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Data Curation, etc. The full list of CRediT roles is available at https://credit.niso.org/

To assign CRediT roles, authors should click the [Edit] button next to each contributor’s name in the submission system and select all roles that apply.

7. Experimental papers are expected to follow the additional rules below:

If your manuscript includes experimental studies, the following rules apply:

1. Pre-registration: Experiments must be pre-registered (preferably on OSF or other free, open-source platforms) in a manner that eliminates or minimizes degrees of freedom in data analysis.
2. Multiple Stimuli: Experiments must include at least three sufficiently distinct variations of vignettes or stimuli to ensure some degree of generalizability and to prevent stimulus hacking.

Temporary Exceptions to Open Science Requirements

We recognize that Experimental Philosophy's open science standards are particularly strict and may not yet be fully adopted by all journals you have considered as potential outlets. As a result, your manuscript may currently lack one of the requirements for consideration under our standards (for example, relying on a single vignette or lacking pre-registration).

To be as inclusive as possible and to allow authors to submit such manuscripts, we permit temporary exceptions to Rules 1 and 2 until May 30, 2026, under the following conditions:

Only one rule may be violated.
We will not consider experimental manuscripts in which the studies were neither pre-registered nor based on multiple stimuli.

If exactly one rule is violated, authors must:

• Provide a brief justification in the cover letter to the editor, and
• Supply evidence that the studies were conducted before the launch of Experimental Philosophy (relevant date: November 30, 2026).

Single-stimulus designs (e.g., one vignette).
If the empirical evidence in your manuscript is based on a single stimulus, we may still consider it for publication provided you are willing to conduct a follow-up experiment with additional stimuli if reviewers regard the paper as promising.

Lack of pre-registration.
If your experimental studies were not pre-registered, we may still consider the manuscript provided you are willing to run a pre-registered follow-up study if reviewers regard the paper as promising. We further encourage you to register your study nonetheless, indicating that data had already been collected and analyzed at the time of registration. This helps ensure that all information relevant for assessing the quality and reliability of your data is available (e.g., sample size rationale, exclusion criteria, and other analytic decisions).

Please note that meeting these conditions does not guarantee that section editors will send the manuscript out for review; it only ensures that the manuscript is eligible for consideration under this temporary exception policy.

Review Process

Experimental Philosophy employs a double-blind peer-review process. Authors submit an anonymized manuscript, which the managing editor sends to a section editor (authors may indicate the section to which their submission should be assigned—for example, philosophy of language, moral philosophy, etc.). The section editor decides whether the submission is desk-rejected or sent for external review.

All final decisions, including desk-rejections, acceptance and rejections following the review process, need to be approved by the editors-in-chief.  They will follow the section editors’ verdict except in extraordinary circumstances, such as negligence or bias on the part of a section editor or referees.

Authors are not identified to referees, and vice versa. Any attempt to identify the author(s) of a submission—such as by searching for the title online—is strictly prohibited. We expect the submission tool to technically allow for a triple-blind review process in the near future.

As authors, do not forget to remove identifying metadata (including in your pdf but also supplementary materials) and only include anonymized links to pre-registrations or supplementary materials. We recommend the Open Science Framework (OSF) – it is a free, open-source project management tool for researchers, acting as a collaboration tool and a long-term data repository.

When citing or referring to their own work, we encourage authors not to blind their own manuscripts but to refer to their own publications in the same way as they refer to other people’s work.

Rejections Without External Review

If the section editor believes the submission has less than a 50% chance of being eventually accepted, they reject the submission without sending it out to external referees. The section editor should do so within three weeks of submission, except for unusually long or difficult manuscripts.

While the section editor can provide feedback to the author(s) independent of the decision, this is not mandatory. The section editor only has to briefly justify the decision to reject without external review to the editors-in-chief. This justification will not be sent to authors.

External Review

If the section editor believes the submission has at least a 50% chance of being accepted, the section editor sends the submission to external referees. In this case, the referees should submit their recommendation to the section editor within four weeks, except for unusually long or difficult manuscripts. The section editor strives to recommend acceptance, minor revisions, or rejection.

The section editor should secure at least two referee reports. However, should one negative report be received before a second is received, the section editor may decide to reject the submission based on only one report, provided they share the referee’s concerns. Otherwise, at least two reports are required for a decision.

External referees are asked to recommend one of the following: accept, revisions, reject. In each case, the external referee has to justify their decision. Manuscripts should be suitable for publication after one round of revisions. If the referees or the section editor believe that further changes could improve the manuscript, these changes need to be flagged as optional.

The job of editors and referees is to evaluate submissions, not improve them. Additional feedback for the author(s) is welcome, but mandatory only when revisions are recommended. In this case, the external referee must specify which parts of the submission need revision and in what respects.

While a request for minor revisions does not guarantee acceptance, it should only be recommended if the section editor believes that a revised submission has at least a 90% chance of being accepted.

Resubmissions

The managing editor tries to assign resubmissions to the same section editor who handled the original submission. The section editor must secure at least one external referee report, preferably from the same external referee(s) who recommended revisions. The section editor must also read the resubmission.

If referees can identify any manuscript author, they are supposed to decline the review. Exceptions are only possible in very rare cases where referees have no conflict of interest and other experts in the field are unlikely to be found. Such exceptions need to be granted by the editors-in-chief.

Referees are supposed to recommend their final recommendation within four weeks of resubmission, except for an unusually long or difficult manuscript.

Experimental Philosophy only allows for one round of revisions. After a revised manuscript has been submitted, the section editor can only recommend accepting or rejecting it.

Accepted Manuscripts

Accepted papers must be adapted to the journal’s house style. Experimental Philosophy follows APA Style (7th edition). The final document should be a Word file (.docx). Due to the (open source) publishing system Experimental Philosophy employs, authors must use the (freely available) Zotero software to manage references (in the main text as well as in the reference section). The template that will convert any docx file into the final manuscript relies on Zotero and cannot add any references added otherwise.