Submissions

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 All manuscripts must be unpublished.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 1000 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.

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.

Copyright and Licensing

The editor in charge of the RLF is the president of the Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas (CIF), which owns the intellectectual properties of the journal. The RLF works with an open access policy. No charges or fees of any kind are applied for the evaluation or publication of manuscripts received. The RLF adheres to the Creative Commons BY 4.0 licence, which full text is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The journal allows partial or full reproduction of published texts, provided that the reproduction states that the text was originally published in the RLF and the full reference is added.