Argumenta – Journal of Analytic Philosophy

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement


Argumenta is committed to upholding ethical standards in its publication of articles of the highest quality and, to this end, is inspired by  COPE’s Code of Conduct guidelines (cf., and in particular the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Core Practices for Journal Publishers.

We select below some key points, but you should refer to the three documents listed above for full details.

  • Authors
    • Authors are required to provide any information, such as disclosures of conflicts of interest or sources of funding. Interests may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal. Disclosure of interest provides a comprehensive and transparent process and helps readers form their own judgments about potential biases.
    • Argumenta expects that authors will present original material that reveals the contribution of their research to enriching the philosophical literature, in particular in analytic philosophy.
    • Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work presented in the manuscript should also be cited.
    • Authors should not submit the same article simultaneously for publication elsewhere, and should be aware that inclusion in an article of plagiarised text, fraudulent data or knowingly inaccurate statements is never acceptable.
    • The editors will check articles to prevent plagiarism or fraudulent data.
    • The editors reserve the right to publish corrections and, in extreme cases, to delete from the journal’s archive material that violates these standards.
  • Double-blind peer review
    • Argumenta employs the system of double-blind peer review in order to ensure as far as possible that submitted articles should be considered for publication without bias.
    • Reviewers will avoid bias or favouritism based on the origin of the article, the gender, race, national origin, ethnicity, religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation, or age of the authors.
    • In case of two contrasting reviews the editors may ask a third reviewer to make an assessment.


  • Editors
    • The editors of Argumenta are required to decide whether to accept or reject articles based solely on their scholarly merit, acting without bias or favouritism of the kinds mentioned above.
    • Editors should guide authors and reviewers in view of their responsibilities, oversee their performance of those responsibilities, and preserve the confidentiality of unpublished articles and the anonymity of peer reviewers.
    • In particular they will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
    • Conflict of interest: Editors or reviewers will withdraw from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewers are required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. They are expected to declare any competing interest that arises at any point in the peer review process. The Editor-in-Chief will review the competing interest and work with the reviewer to mitigate it. In the event that a reviewer’s competing interest is too significant to be mitigated, the reviewer should recuse themselves from reviewing.
    • Reviewers are expected to provide reviews that are constructive and impartial, devoid of any hostile, inflammatory, libelous, unfair or unnecessarily derogatory comments.
    • They should refrain from using research or information contained in unpublished articles for any purpose, including for personal gain or for the advantage or disadvantage of any other person or organisation.
    • To acknowledge the invaluable function of referees, the only exception to anonymity in the reviewing process is that every three years a list of all the colleagues who have acted in this capacity will be published in a special section of the journal.


  • Allegations of misconduct
    • The Editors will respond with care and rigour to allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication.
    • In conjunction with the publisher and/or the Italian Society for Analytic Philosophy (SIFA), the Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication.
    • The Editors will follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other notice as may be appropriate, will be published in the journal.


  • Publisher
    • Finally, Argumenta believes that the publisher should provide the resources and institutional support needed to publish accurate, original and important articles, including, as necessary, specialized legal counsel and review for issues of libel and copyright, and of infringement of these.
    • Moreover, the publisher should protect the independence of editorial decisions, which should not be influenced by commercial considerations or business needs.