About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Metatheoria publishes manuscripts in the field of philosophy of science - including not only systematic, synchronic, and formal philosophy of science, but also historical, diachronic approaches to the field as well as historical epistemology, and history of science from a philosophical point of view that contribute to deepen our understanding of Science.

Conceptual precision, rigour and originality are essential to any work accepted for publication.

This publication is of interest for researchers in philosophy and history of science, and also for scientists and individuals involved in science education and public communication, in addition to lay people and politicians that use science.

 

Official languages

Spanish, English and Portuguese.

 

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are subject to a double revision process. The Editorial Board evaluates the relevance of the work to the journal’s scope and, once approved, the works are submitted to external peer review by the “double blind” system. The works are subject to a double review. The Editorial Board evaluates the relevance of the work to the journal's topic and, once approved, the works are submitted to external peer review by the “double blind” system. The decisions taken are communicated within a maximum of four months.

 

Revision processes

Manuscripts are subject to a double revision process.

In the first place, the Editorial Board evaluates the relevance of the work to the journal’s scope. The Editorial Board can directly reject the works received without resorting to an external consultation process if it considers them inappropriate for the journal because they do not fall under its scope, because they do not conform to the guidelines established by the journal, or because they present evidence of fraud.

Once this instance has been overcome, the works go through a double-blind evaluation process, peer reviewed in a double-blind review process. under confidentiality requirements to make sure neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity. At least two external reviewers, knowledgeable in the subject matter of the submission, are selected. 

In case of disparate opinions among the reviewers, the Editorial Board will come to the final decision in view of the information provided by experts.

As a result of the review process, articles submitted may be accepted, rejected or the author/s may be asked to make some changes suggested by reviewers before publication. In such a case, authors must make the suggested changes and send their paper for a new review.

The evaluation process takes place throughout the year. The decisions taken are communicated within a maximum of four months.

 

Publication Frequency

Metatheoria is published twice a year (April-October).

 

Open Access Policy

Metatheoria is an open access journal, as defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, which allows users to download, read, distribute, print the contents published in the journal, provided that credit is given to the relevant authors and editors.

This journal provides immediate open access to its content, considering that open access to research results allows a wider exchange of global knowledge.

Metatheoria does not charge fees for submitting, processing, publishing or reading manuscripts.

 

Repository policy

All documents included in Metatheoria are stored in the National University of Quilmes’ own servers. Moreover, all submissions are kept at the Digital Institutional Open Access Repository (https://ridaa.unq.edu.ar/handle/20.500.11807/2378), where they are assigned a persistent URL provided by Handle.

Code of conduct

The Graduate Program in Philosophy and History of Science of the National University of Tres de Febrero and the Center of Studies in Philosophy and History of Science of the National University of Quilmes, which are responsible for the editorial work of Metatheoria, pledge to follow and maintain good practice standards in academic publications, throughout each step in the process of publication of the journal.  We include a brief account of our Code of Conduct for publishers, reviewers and authors as well as our procedure for dealing with academic misunderstandings.  As is the case with any guide of good practices, these Guides of Good Practices in Publication are subject to regular revision.

Metatheoria, through its Editorial Board, will make sure good practices in academic publication are kept within the standards described below.

Members of the Editorial Board

  • Carry out their task in a balanced, impartial and fair way, with no discrimination based on authors’ gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political preferences, ethnic or geographical origins.
  • Apply identical scientific standards for supplements or special issues as for regular issues, make sure that articles will be analysed and accepted according to their academic merit, with no inappropriate influences.
  • Adopt and follow judicious procedures in the case of ethical or conflictive objections.  Give authors a reasonable chance to reply to any claim.  All claims must be considered and analysed, regardless of the date when the original publication was set.  All documentation connected to those claims must be archived.

Reviewers

  • Contribute to the decision-making process and help to improve the quality of the work to be published by considering it objectively and adequately.
  • Ensure confidentiality about any information provided by the author or the editor.  No copy of the manuscript must be kept.
  • To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
  • Warn the editor about any potential conflict of interests between reviewer and author (financial, family or any other connections).  If necessary, decline reviewing that particular manuscript.

Authors

  • Confirm that the manuscript submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication somewhere else.  Should some passages in the submitted manuscript coincide with the contents of another manuscript already published or submitted to another journal, it should be acknowledged and sources mentioned.  Additionally, should it prove necessary, the editor must receive a copy of any manuscript that includes content that overlaps or is closely connected to the content submitted to the editors’ assessment.
  • Confirm that the entire manuscript submitted is original and acknowledge and mention the content included in other sources.  Secure permission to reproduce any passage from other sources when necessary.  Should the manuscript not be original (e.g., translated from English, etc.) inform editors upon submission.
  • State any possible conflict of interests to be considered or may have undue influence at any step of the publication process.
  • Promptly warn the editor of the Journal or the editor if a significant error is noticed upon publication.  Cooperate with the editors to publish errata, addendum, corrections, or to recant the manuscript, when deemed necessary.

Ethics in publishing

Metatheoria will avoid publishing works that entail all sorts of misconduct in research.  Whenever mal practice or plagiarism are suspected, the Editorial Board will follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and it will launch the relevant procedures.  Análisis Filosófico is willing to publish amendments, clarifications, withdrawals and apologies whenever necessary.  Should the reader notice any issue along this line, he may contact redaccion@metatheoria.com.ar. Editorial decisions will not be affected by the origin of submissions, including authors’ nationality, ethnic group or religion.  Decisions to edit and publish will be independent from politics, be it governments or other agents not connected to the journal.

The Editorial Board will only consider papers that have not been simultaneously submitted to other journals. 

Identification of improper academic misconduct

Misconduct and inappropriate academic behaviour can be identified and informed to the Editorial Board at any moment, by anyone.  Whoever reports such behaviour to the Editorial Board must provide sufficient information and proofs to launch an investigation.  All allegations must be taken seriously and dealt with adequately until a final decision or conclusion is reached.

Research

The ruling body of the Journal must come to an initial decision after consultation with the Editorial Board, if appropriate.  The necessary proof must be collected, guaranteeing confidentiality and avoiding information about any allegation beyond what they need to know.

Minor misconduct

Minor misconduct may be dealt with avoiding complex processes by discussing it with the parties involved.  The individual concerned must always be granted the right to reply to any claim.

Grave misconduct

Grave misconduct may require notifying the employers of the individual concerned. The Editors of the journal, after consultation with the Editorial Board, must decide whether employers will be involved or not, through an analysis of available proof or a consultation with a limited number of specialists.

Actions to be carried out by the Editorial Board (in increasing order of seriousness; they may be applied either separately of jointly):

  • Inform the person involved whenever there seems to be a misunderstanding or incorrect application of appropriate academic standards.
  • Write a letter to the author or reviewer pointing the misconduct and including a warning about performance in the future.
  • Publish an editorial note detailing the misconduct.
  • Write a formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or financing agent.
  • Public retraction and formal withdrawal of a publication in the journal, jointly with informing the head of the author’s or reviewer’s departments, indexing services and readers of the publication.
  • Imposing of a formal embargo on an individual’s submissions over a definite period of time.
  • Report the case to a professional association or higher authority for further research and actions.