Skip to main content
Log in

Review of Philosophy and Psychology - Call for Papers and Guest Editors Guidelines

Call for Papers

The Review of Philosophy and Psychology (RPP) is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on philosophical and foundational issues in cognitive science. The journal publishes theoretical works grounded in empirical research as well as empirical articles on issues of philosophical relevance.

RPP welcomes regular submissions as well as articles responding to a thematic call for papers. Submitted manuscripts are double-blind reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers and by the guest editors of the issue (when applicable). Manuscripts that are not within the scope of the journal and the topic of a call for papers (when applicable) may be returned to the authors without a formal review.


To submit a manuscript for consideration in the Review of Philosophy and Psychology, please follow this link and select "regular article"


To submit a manuscript for consideration in a thematic issue of the RPP, please follow this link and select the relevant call for papers.


The Review of Philosophy and Psychology welcomes proposals for guest-edited thematic issues. Proposals are evaluated for their timeliness, relevance to the scope and readership of the RPP, feasibility, and overall scientific quality. Issue proposals should be submitted for consideration to the editor: Paul Egré,

Guidelines for Guest Editors

The Review of Philosophy and Psychology welcomes proposals for guest-edited thematic issues. Proposals are evaluated for their timeliness, relevance to the scope and readership of the RPP, feasibility, and overall scientific quality. Proposals can be submitted at any time and will be blind reviewed within 3 months. Accepted proposals result in the appointment of guest editors and in the preparation of a call for paper for a thematic issue.

Format of a Proposal

Proposals for future issues should include the following:

   A short motivation letter, explaining the stakes, expected impact, target readership and timeliness of the proposed issue.

   The proposed title of the issue.

   A call for papers (no more than 300 words).

   Names, affiliations, and short biografical information about the guest editor(s). The name and contact details of a single contact editor, who will be in charge of all the communication, should also be specified.

   A selection of recent literature relevant to the proposed issue.

   A list of potential invited authors. Providing a list of authors already willing to submit papers to the proposed volume as invited contributors is particularly appreciated.

   A pool of potential authors and reviewers.

   Reference to any past or forthcoming scientific event (conferences or workshops) that may provide relevant contributors to the volume, if applicable.

Proposals should be submitted electronically to the editorial board of the RPP, to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief, Paul Egre:

The Role of Guest Editors

Contributors whose proposal has been accepted and scheduled for production are appointed as guest editors. Guest editors work in close collaboration with the

Editor-in-chief and executive board of the RPP. The role of the RPP board is to provide support to guest editors and ensure that the editorial procedure (circulation of the call for papers, refereeing process, communication with authors) is smooth and timely.

Guest editors are expected to: 

   Select potential authors (usually leading authors in the field) as invited contributors. Each guest edited issue should feature up to three invited articles

   Prepare and circulate a call for papers.

   Select and allocate reviewers for submitted and invited papers. Our editorial policy requires a minimum of two double-blind reviews for submitted and invited papers. The editorial board will assist guest editors with a list of potential reviewers from the pool of previous contributors/referees. The review process will be handled via Springer's manuscript tracking system (Editorial Manager)

   Select papers for the issues on the basis of the peer review. Guest editors are in charge of acceptance/rejection/revision and re-submission decisions and notify the editorial board on each of these decisions. Due to the format of thematic issues, authors whose papers are not suitable for publication will not be offered the possibility to resubmit their work.

   Write an introduction to the volume that will be reviewed by the RPP board.  Compile the final manuscript of the volume and submit it to the publisher, making sure that the guidelines and deadlines are respected so as to facilitate the production of the issue.

The contact editor will serve as the contact point between the guest editors’ team and the RPP board. S/he is accountable for the progress on the issue and reports to the RPP editors on any problems that may arise during the preparation of the issue.

Volume Specifications

Guest edited issues include invited contributions as well as articles submitted in response to a call for papers. The page budget for each issue should be within a maximum of 200 pages. Special page budget requests will be discussed on an individual basis with the RPP board.

Appendix - Publisher’s Code of Conduct

In this Appendix the term “Journal” shall mean the journal for which the Editor-in-Chief is editorially responsible.


1. The Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to follow the COPE guideline entitled Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

2. The Publisher has responsibility to ensure that journals published by the Publisher adhere to editorial and publication ethics standards recommended by COPE, and the Publisher will support Editor(s)-in-Chief in their pursuit of adhering to such COPE standards. When dealing with publication and research ethics issues, Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to follow COPE guidance and flowcharts or any guidance provided by the Publisher. The final course of action should be decided by the Editor(s)-in-Chief. In difficult cases, or where there is no existing COPE guidance, the Editor(s)-in-Chief may seek advice from the Publisher, and some cases may need to be resolved in collaboration between Editor(s)-in-Chief and the Publisher. The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and general guidelines and flowcharts are available from the COPE website (

3. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to be aware of the editorial policies and information provided for authors by the Journal.

4. If there is more than one Editor-in-Chief for the Journal, it is understood that the responsibility concerning Editorship of the Journal is shared between them.

Peer review

5. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to comply with the Journal’s peer review policy (e.g. open, single- blind, double-blind).

6. Peer review is an essential component of the research publication. It aims to assess the validity of the reported research and suitability for journals’ scope and aims. In order to maintain the integrity of the published record the Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to ensure that all manuscripts reporting primary research, or secondary analysis of primary research, accepted for publication in the Journal are peer reviewed by reviewers who are competent in a relevant field and/or have expertise in a relevant methodology, as judged by their publication record, and are free of potential bias. Such bias includes, but is not limited to, any recent collaboration between the peer reviewers and the authors of the manuscript. The requirement for Editor(s)-in-Chief to ensure absence of conflicts of interest amongst peer reviewers expressly applies to peer reviewers suggested by the authors of the manuscript.

7. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s)-in-Chief may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out in section 8 below.

8. Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a scientific rationale for the recommendations.

9. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.

10. Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without two peer review reports. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s)-in-Chief if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s)-in-Chief; if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s)-in-Chief, such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

Manuscript handling

11. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to provide a professional service to authors. Correspondence should be handled in a timely and professional manner. Arrangements should be in place to ensure editorial staff absences do not result in a reduced service to authors.

12. Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to make full use of the online submission and peer-review system provided by the Publisher and, where necessary, maintain offline tracking systems, in order to preserve a full record of the peer review of each manuscript, where offline tracking is used, Editor(s)-in-Chief should upload offline records to the online submission and peer-review system as soon as possible.


13. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to respect and uphold the confidential status of materials submitted to the Journal and should ensure that material remains confidential while under review.