Environmental Philosophy

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Environmental Philosophy strives to provide a forum that is accessible to all those working in this broad field, while recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of this conversation. We invite papers in the following general categories:

• Environmental Philosophy
• Humanities and Environmental Policy Development
• Environmental Ethics and Practice
• Environmental Aesthetics and Literature
• Environmental Theology
• Ecophenomenology
• Architecture, Place, and Dwelling
• Culture and Communities
• Philosophy of Science and Technology
• Environmental Justice and Political Ecology
• Analytic and Continental Approaches
• Non-western and indigenous perspectives
• Comparative environmental philosophy

The journal also invites feminist submissions within any of these areas.

The journal publishes feature articles (typically 6000-7000 words, although we have no fixed length requirements for submissions); discussion papers (shorter essays); and book reviews.

Articles & Discussion Papers

In preparing an article or discussion paper for submission, please:

• Include an article abstract of 100 words maximum
• Include a separate cover page with your name and affiliation, with the title, to facilitate blind review
• Use footnotes rather than endnotes
• Follow the Chicago Manual of Style
• Use American spellings and punctuation style
• Include Lists of Works Cited or Bibliographies only when using the author-date reference system

Authors should submit manuscripts online through the journal's ScholarOne manuscript submission site:

It is a condition of publication that authors vest copyright in their articles to Environmental Philosophy and the International Association for Environmental Philosophy.

Book Reviews

Environmental Philosophy publishes both invited and submitted reviews of 800-1500 words. Reviews, and suggestions for books to be reviewed, should be submited by e-mail to the Book Review Editors:

• Daniele Fulvi
  Western Sydney University
  D.Fulvi@westernsydney.edu.au
  
  
• Hayden Kee
  Chinese University of Hong Kong
  hkee@cuhk.edu.hk

Publishers are invited to submit copies of books of interest to our readers for consideration of review in the journal. Please send print copies to the book review editor at the following address:

Publication Ethics Statement

The editorial team of Environmental Philosophy is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and referencesto permit others to confirm a chain of reasoning or experimental result. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. 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 paper.

The Publisher will respond to alleged or proven cases of research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism in close collaboration with the editors. The publisher will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question if necessary. This may include the publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Statement of Reviewing Ethos

Fostering ecological transformation involves attending to all features of our relational processes with integrity, care, and constructive intent. This means that how things are done is as important as their outcome or product. To this end, the editorial team of Environmental Philosophy finds it important to highlight the following peer review ethos guidelines. We think rigorous and constructive peer-review is a crucial part of an excellent journal. We accordingly seek reviews that are concerned with an article's accuracy and reach into related scholarship, insight, conceptual cogency, and appropriateness of form. In this way we understand the work of reviewing as contributing to the development of the thought of the author and the broader scholarly community in all of its complexity.

This means that reviews should be honest and exercise the reviewer's critical acumen while also remaining grounded in an attitude of basic respect rather than authoritative disdain. While variation in tone and style is part of the healthy diversity of a scholarly community, we want the review process to contribute to a creative scholarly community rather than perpetuate an arena of agonistic competition. We ask reviewers to keep this in mind as they exercise their judgment, imagination, and mentoring capabilities. In this way, the peer review process at Environmental Philosophy can be a model for constructive relationships between authors, reviewers, and editors and a chance to do what we do best: philosophical inquiry, environmentalism, and collective learning.