Instructions for Authors
1. Article submission: Follow the link to submit a new article.
2. All submissions are subjected to a blind peer review, which will be implemented within three months.
3. Articles should normally be around 6.000 – 10.000 words. Everything, including the abstract, keywords and bibliography, counts towards the overall length.
4. All authors should include their full names, affiliations, postal addresses, telephone numbers and institutional email addresses on the cover page of the manuscript. One author should be identified as the corresponding author.
5. Manuscripts should be double-spaced with ample margins, typed in Times New Roman, 12-point font size, and must be accompanied by an abstract of about 100–150 words as well as by a list of 5–8 keywords.
6. The manuscript should be an original work; it must not duplicate any other previously published work, including the author’s own works. Plagiarism checks are performed for all submitted articles through Elsevier.
7. The manuscript must not in any way violate intellectual property rights of third parties.
8. The manuscript should not be under consideration for peer review elsewhere.
9. Bibliographic references should be provided in footnotes e.g.,
* For philosophical texts: Hobbes, De Cive, Χ, 16 – Plat. Resp. 343c.
* For books: Lloyd S. A., 2009: 289-294 or Lloyd S. A., Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Cases in the Law of Nature, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 289-294.
* For articles: Ranson S., ”Towards the learning society”, Education Management and Administration, 20: 2, 1992, pp. 68-79.
* For chapters within books: Ball S. J., (ed.), 1990: 75-78 or Hoskin K., ”Foucault under examination: the crypto-educationalist unmasked”, in: Ball S. J., (ed.) Foucault and Education, Routledge, London 1990, pp. 75-78.
The references should be listed alphabetically at the end of the paper in the following standard form:
For philosophical texts: Hobbes T., De Cive: the English version entitled in the first edition Philosophical rudiments concerning government and society, The Clarendon edition of the philosophical works of Thomas Hobbes; v. 3, Oxford University Press 1983.
For books: Barnett R., The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society. Buckingham 1994: The Society for Research into Higher Education.
For articles: Ranson S., ”Towards the learning society”, Education Management and Administration, 20: 2, 1992, pp. 68-79.
For chapters within books: Hoskin K., ”Foucault under examination: the crypto-educationalist unmasked”, in: Ball S. J., (ed.) Foucault and Education, Routledge, London 1990.
10. The Editor reserves the right to make changes to manuscripts where necessary to bring them into conformity with the stylistic and bibliographical conventions of the Journal.
Peer review process
All journal content should undergo peer review. Articles submitted for publication are subjected to a double-blind peer review process. Initially, submissions are reviewed by the editorial team. The Senior Editors may reject a manuscript outright if it falls outside the journal’s scope or is of such low quality that further consideration is unwarranted.
Manuscripts deemed suitable for review are sent to two experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are usually members of the Academic Board of the journal, who report to Senior Editors (Dr. Elias Vavouras and Dr. Michail Theodosiadis). Reviewers do not communicate with each other during the review process. They assess the manuscript and classify it as one of the following: publishable as is, publishable with revisions, or not publishable. Reviewers typically provide a detailed evaluation, including a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
Note: the 40%–60% of the submitted manuscripts receive desk rejection. Only the 40%–60% of the submitted manuscripts that make the initial cut will be sent out for peer review.
Responsibilities of the Editor and Editorial Board of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy
The editor and the editorial board of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy are responsible for
-
- deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. In making these decisions, they are guided by the policies of the journal and by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism;
-
- providing guidance to guest editors, authors and reviewers on everything that is expected of them and also a description of peer review processes;
-
- providing new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keeping existing members updated on new policies and developments;
-
- evaluating manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic and intellectual merit, without regard to the author(s)’ race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class;
-
- ensuring a fair and unbiased double-blind peer review of the manuscripts and that all information related to them is kept confidential. They also ensure that both authors’ and peer reviewers’ identities are protected;
-
- ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected;
-
- developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating it on the basis of reviewer performance;
-
- ensuring that unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author;
-
- taking reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript. In cases of suspected misconduct, they follow the COPE flowcharts, available here.
-
- publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever needed.
Authors’ Responsibilities
-
- Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable;
-
- Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one publication at a time. This constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable;
-
- Authors must ensure that they have written original works and that any work or words of others authors, contributors or sources have been appropriately credited and referenced;
-
- Authors submitting their works to Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy for publication as original articles confirm that the submitted works represent their own contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works without clearly citing the source. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work;
-
- Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable;
-
- Authors must ensure that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere;
-
- Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors;
-
- The corresponding author with the journal should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication;
-
- Authors should disclose financial or other conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support should be disclosed;
-
- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors and cooperate with them to retract or correct the manuscript.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
-
- Peer review assists the editor and executive editorial board of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript;
-
- Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted;
-
- Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents;
-
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage;
-
- Reviewers must report to the editor of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s part;
-
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper;
-
- Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class;
-
- Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Open Access Policy
The journal is freely available online. Authors are required to agree with this open access policy which enables unrestricted access and reuse of all published articles (see Aims and Scope). Users are allowed to copy and redistribute the material in printed or electronic format and build upon the material, without further permission or fees being required, provided that appropriate credit is given.
Publisher’s Responsibilities
The publisher of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy
-
- provides practical support to the editor and executive editorial board of Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal;
-
- ensures the autonomy of editorial decisions;
-
- protects intellectual property and copyright;
-
- ensures that good practice is maintained to the standards defined above.