Code of Ethics
Argumenta is committed to abiding by 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. https://publicationethics.org/). Accordingly, Argumenta expects that authors will present original material that reveals the value of their research to enriching the philosophical literature, in particular in analytic philosophy. To this end, authors should not submit the same article simultaneously to other journals, and should be aware that inclusion in an article of plagiarised text, fraudulent data or knowingly inaccurate statements is never acceptable. The editors reserve the right to publish corrections and, in extreme cases, to delete from the journal’s archive material that violates these standards.
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 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. Reviewers are expected also to provide reviews that are constructive and impartial, devoid of any hostile, inflammatory, libellous, unfair, or unnecessarily derogatory comments. In addition, they should refrain from using research or information contained in unpublished articles for any purpose, including for personal gain or for the advantage or disadvantage of any other person or organization.
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 in the previous paragraph. Editors should steer 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of their responsibilities, oversee their performance of those responsibilities, and preserve the confidentiality of unpublished articles and the anonymity of peer reviewers. To acknowledge the invaluable function of referees, the only exception to this anonymity is that every three years a list of all the colleagues who acted in this role will be published in a special section of the journal.
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, copyright, and of infringement of these. Moreover, the publisher should maintain the independence of editorial decisions, which should not be influenced by commercial considerations or business needs.