Submissions

Disputatio aims at publishing high-quality articles on any aspects of analytic philosophy (broadly construed), written in either English or Portuguese.

A submission accepted for publication in Disputatio should make at least one original (possibly negative) point with sufficient plausibility and rigour.

All submissions are made through Editorial Manager (here). Please read the instructions below before submitting a paper. To be considered for publication, submissions must meet the Minimum Standard.

Authors own the copyright of their articles. Disputatio owns all other materials.

  • 2. The Submission Process

  • Submissions are made through the Editorial Manager system (here). Manuscripts must be prepared for blind review.

  • 3. Minimum Standard

  • Submissions must be in either English or Portuguese, double-spaced or with margins of not less than 25mm (or one inch), in A4 page size and automatic page numbering. A short but informative abstract (around 200 words) at the beginning of the paper is required, followed by 5 keywords.

  • Disputatio does not have strict word limits but an average article is around 8000 words.

  • Typescripts must be carefully proofread prior to submission. Authors who submit articles in English, or Portuguese, but who are not native English, or Portuguese, speakers, may choose to have their work revised by a native speaker or by professional editing services.

  • Articles should be prepared for blind review, including suppression of institutional affiliations and acknowledgments of gratitude. Self-identifying information may be restored after the evaluation process is complete.
  • 4. Style

  • Submissions accepted for publication must be brought into conformity with Disputatio’s style. Publication will not otherwise be proceeded with. A submission that has been accepted for publication must be supplied in a limited range of formats namely .doc, .docx, or .rtf. Authors whose original submission was written in LaTeX must convert their articles to one of those formats.

  • Authors should take the appearance of a recent article in Disputatio as a rough guide for the production, conventions and layout of a finished typescript.

  • If an accepted submission is written in Portuguese, then it must include the English translation of its abstract.

  • Papers

    Abstract of about 200 words.

    5 keywords.

    No endnotes; just numbered footnotes.

    Quotations longer than 3 lines should be detached from the main text.

    Please make sure to be consistent in such conventional matters as symbols, quotation marks, brackets, etc.

    Author-date system should be used in the text, as follows:

    Authors should take care that Disputatio’s style includes the following features:

    – If an accepted submission is written in Portuguese, then it must include the English translation of its abstract and keywords.

    – Abstract of about 200 words.

    – 5 keywords (max).

    – The first section starts immediately after the abstract.

    – Sections should be numerically—indo-arabic—identified (e.g. 1 Introduction).

    – Section titles should have only the first word capitalised; except when proper names
    are involved (e.g. 2 Section title).

    – No endnotes; just numbered footnotes.

    – Quotations longer than 3 lines should be detached from the main text.

    – Please make sure to be consistent in such conventional matters as symbols, quotation
    marks, brackets, etc.

    – Author-date system should be used in the text, as follows:

    ‘(Author date: page)’ for quotations: The inferences drawn in these examples would all satisfy Williams’ conception of a ‘sound deliberative route’ (Williams 1981: 104).

    ‘Author (date)’ for author reference: The inferences drawn in these examples would all satisfy the requirements put forward by Williams (1981).

    ‘Author date’ for book reference: The inferences drawn in these examples would all satisfy the requirements put forward in Williams 1981.

    ‘Author (date: page)’ for page reference: The inferences drawn in these examples would all satisfy the requirements put forward by Williams (1981: 104).

    Only works referred to in the paper should be gathered at the end, under the heading ‘References’, using the author-date system, as follows:

    Books: Authorsurname, Authorname. Date. Title of the Book. City: Publisher.

    Books, translations: Authorsurname, Authorname. Date of original publication. Translated Title of the Book. Translated by Name. City: Publisher, Date of Edition Referred to.

    Books, Ancient classics: Authorname. Title. Edited by Name. City: Publisher, Date of Edition.

    Chapter: Authorsurname, Authorname. Date. “Title”. In Title of Book. City: Publisher.

    Paper in a collection: Authorsurname, Authorname. Date. “Title”. In Title of Book, ed. by Authorname Surname. City: Publisher.

    Paper in a journal: Authorsurname, Authorname. Date. “Title”. Name of Journal Number:pagesstart-end.

    Examples

    Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by Martin Ostwald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.

    Blackburn, Simon. 1998. Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Cohon, Rachel. 1986. “Are external reasons impossible?”. Ethics 96: 545-556.

    Hume, David. 1740. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.

    Kant, Immanuel. 1781. The Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp-Smith. London: Macmillan, 1929.

    Williams, Bernard. 1981. “Internal and external reasons”. In Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Editorial Policy

Unsolicited Contributions

Disputatio welcomes high quality contributions in any area of analytic philosophy (broadly construed), written in English or Portuguese.

Articles should be no longer than 8000 words of main text including bibliography (although longer papers may be considered).

Articles under consideration should make at least one original (possibly negative) point with sufficient plausibility and rigour.

Disputatio considers all manuscripts on the strict condition that they are not under consideration for publication or in press elsewhere; and that they have not been published in whole or substantial part already.

Disputatio considers proposals for Special Issues.

The Editors reserve the right not to proceed with publication of “accepted” contributions where the author(s) does/do not supply a final version in conformity with the Disputatio’s style.

Other Contributions

Disputatio further publishes the Petrus Hispanus Lectures and the Disputatio Lecture.

Editorial Procedures

The Evaluation of Submissions

All unsolicited submissions to Disputatio are triple-blind refereed: the identity of the authors is not revealed to the referees, the identity of the referees is not revealed to the authors and the identity of the authors is not revealed to the editors.

The evaluation process has up to four sequential stages, as follows:

  • 1 Preliminary vetting by the Editors.
  • 2 Refereeing
  • 3 Scrutiny of submission and referees’ reports by the editors.
  • 4 Final decision by the editors.

The editors’ decision classifies the submission into one of the four categories: accepted, conditionally accepted, invited for resubmission after major revisions and rejected. Positive referees’ reports are not a sufficient condition for acceptance/rejection and each decision is the editors’ sole responsibility.

On average, the reviewing process takes around four months.

Conflicts of Interest

The editors will not submit to the journal during their term of office.

A submission by a member of the editorial board will be processed without involving her/him in any way in the assessment.

Editorial Referee’s Instructions

Deadlines

Referees are given two months to review a submission.

Format

In addition to whatever comments they wish to be conveyed to the editors and authors, referees are asked to fill in Disputatio’s report form.

Content

Referees are asked to classify submissions into one of the four categories: accepted, conditionally accepted, invited for resubmission after major revisions and rejected. If revisions are recommended, the same referee is asked to review the revised version.

Substantial comments are only required with a view to improving a submission that could eventually be published.

Referees should bear in mind that Disputatio makes available as much of their reports as possible to the authors. They should adopt a judicious tone in their assessment, but if a submission is of poor quality the report must indicate this.

Criteria

A submission accepted for publication in Disputatio should make at least one original (possibly negative) point with sufficient plausibility and rigour.

Special Issue Intructions

Special Issues

Disputatio welcomes the submission of proposals by guest editors to edit special issues (SIs) dedicated to particular topics or authors.

Proposals

As a minimum, the proposal should include:

1. A motivation for the SI;

2. A list of prospective contributors and extended abstracts, giving a good idea of the main lines of argument;

3. A tentative time-line.

(The guest editors may start out by submitting a preliminary proposal that, if accepted, allows them to select prospective contributions by means of an open call for papers that mentions that the issue will be published with Disputatio, for then submitting the full proposal once the selection has been made.)

If the proposal is accepted, the guest editors commit to writing an introduction to the SI which
explains its raison d’être and provides the required background for the general reader.

For further information, please visit our website: https://sciendo.com/journal/DISP
Evaluation Process

The evaluation process of individual papers should follow Disputatio’s general refereeing and
assessing policies (see The Editorial Procedures above, Editorial Policy and Guideline for Reviewers), but will be run entirely by the guest
editors. The editors-in-chief nevertheless have the last word on each paper and on the SI as a whole
(and, to that purpose, reserve the right to inspect referees’ reports whenever deemed necessary).