ISSN 1852-7353
versión on-line

Instructions to authors

• Scope and policy
• Form and preparation of manuscripts
• Sending of manuscripts

Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía is an open access and blind peer-review publication that receives contributions in any area of philosophy. Open to all philosophical currents, ideas and trends, the journal aspires to the collaboration of all scholars who wish to present the results of their research to their colleagues and the public.

In its more than forty years of life, the RLF has proposed to offer a space for the publication and dissemination of work in philosophy that is carried out not only in Argentina, but also in Latin America and the rest of the world, thus addressing members of the national and international philosophical community. Its main objective is to promote dialogue and exchange of productions in the field of philosophical research, whether they refer to current affairs or to the history of the discipline. The RLF welcomes works of all orientations if they are original, represent advances in the knowledge of the topics addressed and enrich the philosophical debate.

The RLF publishes articles, notes, critical studies, and discussions. It also includes a permanent section of reviews and, occasionally, thematic dossiers are designed that do not interrupt the periodicity of the publication.

The RLF is published twice a year, in May and November.

Since 2019, the RLF is only published online.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The blind review of the originals carried out by referees external to the Editorial Committee follows the following evaluation criteria:

[1] RELEVANCE AND ORIGINALITY

It is evaluated if the thematic area of the article is appropriate to the editorial line of the journal. If it does not fit these editorial guidelines, the article should not be recommended for publication.

[2] HANDLING OF THE TOPIC AND REFERENCES

The relevance, pertinence and timeliness of the bibliography used, as well as the general knowledge of the state of the art, are rated. The rating is made according to the following criteria: good, fair or poor. If the bibliography is irrelevant or outdated, the referee may mention some of the most important works that should be taken into consideration in the comments to item [2].

[3] CONSISTENCY AND CLARITY

1. The clarity of the article is rated according to its readability and style as good, fair or poor.

2. The coherence of the paper is evaluated by considering whether its objectives and hypotheses are well defined and also whether the author fulfills his or her intentions. This evaluation also follows the classification of good, fair or poor.

3. It is examined whether the work has a precise conclusion in which the author summarizes his/her main contribution. If the answer is negative, the referee may ask to expand the existing conclusion or add a conclusion.

4. The referee evaluates whether the paper includes critical considerations on the topic it addresses or on the authors it cites.

5. The formal aspects of the paper (style, syntax, length and general structure) are rated as good, fair or poor.

[4] TITLE AND ABSTRACT

1. It is evaluated if the title is adequate and expresses clearly and precisely the subject it deals with. If not, the referee may suggest an alternative title.

2. Evaluate whether the abstract is correctly written. If not, the referee should point out the most important typos or errors.

[5] REWRITING

The referee may suggest or request the rewriting of certain passages or paragraphs if he/she considers it necessary. To do so, the referee will indicate in comments, in a precise manner, what changes, additions or corrections the author should make.

[6] TABLES AND IMAGES

If the work contains tables, images or figures, the referee will evaluate whether they are clear and necessary. If not, the referee will make the pertinent suggestions in the comments to item [6].

[7] FINAL OPINION (RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLICATION)

The referee gives a final grade of the paper according to the following criteria:

• UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. The work deserves to be published as submitted, without corrections or additions, except for possible minor stylistic or detailed changes.

• ACCEPTANCE WITH OBSERVATIONS. The paper is recommended for publication, but it is suggested that some modifications be made to a small number of passages or paragraphs. The revised version, if received, will be resent to the same reviewer.

• CONDITIONAL PUBLICATION. The publication of the paper depends on the realization of a certain number of important changes that are considered essential. The revised version, if received, will be submitted to a new referee.

• REJECTION. Publication of the paper is not recommended, even with considerable changes, because a complete reformulation of the text is required.

[8] REVIEWER'S COMMENT TO THE EDITORS (OPTIONAL)

The referee can send to the editors of the journal the comments on the evaluated paper that he/she considers pertinent.

Code of Conduct

The publisher of the Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía, i. e. the Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas, is committed to meeting and upholding standards of good practice in academic publishing at all stages of the publication process. Below is a summary of our Code of Conduct for editors, peer-reviewers and authors and our Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct, which adheres to the latest publications ethics and malpractice policies. These Good Publishing Practice Guidelines are meant to be periodically revised.

Code of Conduct

Editors' responsibilities

• To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.

• To handle submissions for supplements or special issues in the same way as regular submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without undue influence.

• To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflicting nature. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.

Reviewers' responsibilities

• To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner.

• To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.

• To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.

• To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between reviewer and author) and to alert the editor of these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.

Authors' responsibilities

• To confirm that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content.

• To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources when needed.

• To declare any potential conflicts of interest that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process.

• To notify promptly the RLF’s editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an errata, addenda, corrigenda notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.

Publisher's responsibilities

• The Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas through the academic committee shall ensure that good publishing practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.

Plagiarism detection

Submissions must be original and free of plagiarism. Before evaluation, the journal checks, using the detection tools at its disposal, that the work received does not incur in plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected, the work will be immediately rejected, and the author will be provided with the evidence collected. The sender may make any allegations he/she deems appropriate; however, the journal reserves the right to reject the submission definitively after review and appropriate response to the allegations made.

Procedures for dealing with academic misconduct

Identification of unethical behavior

• Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.

• Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

• An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.

• Evidence should be gathered, while maintaining confidentiality and avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

• Minor misconduct might be dealt without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

• Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

1. Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

2. A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and a warning to future behavior.

3. Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.

4. Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.

5. A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer’s department or funding agency.

6. Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.

7. Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.

8. Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

Author Guidelines

All collaborations must be submitted through the OJS system, following the instructions the system provides. Since RLF works with an anonymous peers-review system, the identity of the author should not be included in the manuscript, neither in the cover, notes or bibliography. All articles will be evaluated by at least one external reviewer. We accept manuscripts in Spanish, Portuguese or English. All manuscripts must be unpublished. Authors will not be able to introduce modifications in their manuscript once the article has been accepted for publication by the Editorial Committee.

A) Structure 

1. Manuscripts must be submitted in a Word file (.doc o .docx) or RTF. Authors must use Times New Roman 12, with 1.5 line spacing. If the manuscript is not in English, an English translation of the title must be provided. In the case of manuscripts written in English, a Spanish translation of the title must be provided. Quotations must be indented in the left margin, single spaced and in 11 font. Footnotes should be in a 10 font, single spaced and no longer than ten lines. Preferably, they should contain only bibliographical references rather than arguments, philosophical discussions, historical information or translations. All sections must be numbered consecutively and cannot contain subsections. All acknowledgments, whether institutional or personal, should be placed at the end of the manuscript, just before the bibliographical references. Authors must avoid using footnotes in titles or subtitles. All illustrations, figures and tables must be inserted within the text, not at the end.

2. Articles should not be longer than 10,000 words; notes and critical studies should not be longer than 6000 words; discussions should not be longer than 3000 words; and bibliographic reviews should not be longer than 1500 words. The Editorial Committee may decide not to publish manuscripts that surpass the word limits mentioned above.

3. Articles, notes, critical studies and discussions must include an abstract of up to 120 words and three to five keywords, both in the manuscript’s original language and in English. The keywords must not repeat terms already used in the title.

4. Authors should submit a separate file with their personal information, including the complete name of the author/s, institutional affiliation, and a short CV of up to 120 words.

5. All manuscripts must include bibliographical references of the works cited. The list of references must be placed at the end of the manuscript and alphabetically ordered. For more details see section B below.

 B) References

RLF uses an author-year-page system. References can be either in the text itself or in footnotes and must follow the following model:

1. Author, year and page number (Habermas 1981: 302).

2. Author, year and paragraph number (Heidegger 1927: 52).

3. Author, year, page number and footnote number (Quine 1960: 171, n. 2).

4. Book/article, year and reference to several pages (Ricoeur 1967: 135-138 or Ricoeur 1967: 135 ss.)

5. Complete works by initials and page number (Hegel GW 11: 279).

Quotations of three lines or more should be written in a smaller font, and indented in the left margin without quotation marks. In this case bibliographic references should not go in a footnote, but in the text itself. Shorter quotations, whether complete sentences or parts of a sentence, must be inserted in the text, in normal size font with double quotation marks, and must be followed by the corresponding bibliographic reference in parentheses. All quotations must be translated into the language in which the paper is written. In those cases in which philological considerations are relevant, original words or expressions may be included in parentheses and italicized, for example: (ousía), (tópos ouranós), (quod quid erat esse). Words in Greek or other non-Latin alphabets should be transliterated according to the most common conventions. The works mentioned in the text and the footnotes should be listed alphabetically at the end, under a BIBLIOGRAPHY title, and cited according to the following models. 

Books
Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Edited collections
Hollis, M. y Lukes, S. (1982) (eds.) Rationality and Relativism (Oxford: Blackwell).

Book chapters
Taylor, C. (1982) "Rationality”, en Hollis y Lukes (1982: 87-105).

Articles
Carnap, R. (1950) "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4: 20-40.

Articles in online journals
Zucker, A. (2007) “Morale du Physiologos: le symbolisme animal dans le christianisme ancien (IIe-Ve s.)”, Rursus, vol. 2, http://revel.unice.fr/rursus/document.html?id=142 [last access September 27 2007]  

Roman numbers should not be used, neither in references of the Works consulted, nor in the bibliographical list. Authors must use Arabic numbers in all cases, including volumes, unless Roman numbers are essential to avoid misunderstandings.

In case of doubts about how to reference works, authors can consult Robert Ritter, The Oxford Guide of Style (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), in particular Chapter 15, pages 566-572.

All collaborations must be submitted through the OJS system, following the instructions the system provides.