The Harvard Review of Philosophy publishes articles and interviews with contemporary academic philosophers as well as transcripts of our annual lecture delivered by a distinguished scholar on our annual theme. Occasionally, we review recently published books.
We prize submissions whose engagingness and readability come at no cost to their philosophical rigor. Each year, we select a theme for our issue and curate articles by invitation. While we are generally speaking an invitation-only publication, exceptions can be made for pieces that relate to the chosen topic. The theme for the 2022-23 issue is Free Will.
Because we are an undergraduate-run publication that uses invitation-based curation, our editorial process differs from anonymous peer-review. Authors should expect a collaborative editing process, wherein our board of editors supplies two or more rounds of suggested revisions which the author may choose to incorporate, followed by copy editing by members of our board. Authors have the opportunity to review the final copy prior to publication, sent to them by our publisher, the Philosophy Documentation Center, who is in charge of production and online distribution.
Electronic submission is preferred. Please send articles to firstname.lastname@example.org. If needed for any reason, such as if electronic submission is not possible, our mailing address is below:
The Harvard Review of Philosophy
Emerson Hall 303
25 Quincy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
All submissions must be in English. Manuscript pages should be double-spaced with 1" margins and 12-point font.
The Review only publishes manuscripts that have not been previously published in their current form. However, the journal will consider manuscripts that have been circulated on web sites or delivered as lectures. It will also consider published texts that have been translated into English or modified substantially since first publication. When submitting a text that has been published in a previous form, please include a full citation and a complete copy of the previously published version. There is no maximum or minimum length for submissions, although the average length of accepted articles in the past has been about 7,000 words. We ask that authors refrain from submitting their manuscripts to other publications while under consideration by the Review.
We ask that authors follow the Chicago Manual of Style (endnotes and bibliography) for bibliographic information if possible, but we are flexible and able to reformat citations during the editorial process when necessary.
The Review reserves the right to republish all accepted submissions. This includes but is not limited to future issues of the journal, the journal's online archives, and future books that may be published by the Review. Authors retain all other rights to their submissions including the right to republish their submissions in other journals and books once the submission has appeared in the Review. Please see our Rights and Permissions page for additional details.
Questions about submission procedures should be directed to email@example.com.
Publications Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The editorial team of The Harvard Review of 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 references to 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 works, 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. Suggestions should be formulated objectively, and observations should be communicated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Editors 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.
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.