About the Journal
The Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics (EJPE) is a peer-reviewed bi-annual academic journal supported by the Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics at the Erasmus School of Philosophy of Erasmus University Rotterdam. EJPE publishes research on the methodology, history, ethics, and interdisciplinary relations of economics, and welcomes contributions from all scholars with an interest in any of its research domains. EJPE is an Open Access Journal: all content is permanently available online without subscription or payment.
EJPE aims to . . .
- Publish high quality original research at the intersection of philosophy and economics.
- Support the interdisciplinary development of the field with critical survey papers covering ongoing debates and information about relevant publications.
- Provide a forum that is friendly to young scholars, and supported by an authoritative, efficient, and constructive review process.
Types of content
Contributions by submission
- Articles: within any of the research domains of the Journal.
- Book reviews: of recent publications in the field.
- Critical comments: focused responses to recent or classical papers.
- PhD thesis summaries: of recent graduates in any area covered by the Journal.
Contributions arranged by the EJPE Editors
- Interviews: with experienced philosophers and economists.
- Invited papers: generally critical survey papers on a particular field by well-established academics.
Reasons to submit to EJPE
- Fast editorial process: EJPE aims to provide authors with a first decision within three months, and is quite successful at doing so. Over 2017–2019, the average time between submission and a first decision for all articles that go to peer-review has been 3.2 months. Desk-rejections are typically made within two weeks. Our average acceptance rate is 17%. See here for more details on our average turnaround times.
- Open Source: EJPE is a non-profit open source journal. Everyone can access it freely, and there are no submission fees for authors.
- Mark Blaug Prize: EJPE awards an annual prize to the best article submitted by a (recently graduated) graduate student.
- International audience: EJPE is an interdisciplinary journal indexed by Scopus, The Philosopher’s Index and EconLit (AEA), and is read by a large international audience.
Statement of Publication Ethics
The statement of EJPE's publication ethics is based on the best practice guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) available at http://publicationethics.org/.
The purpose of EJPE (hereafter the Journal) is to publish high-quality peer-reviewed research articles in philosophy and economics, and to promote the development of this field with additional, and clearly distinguished, non-peer reviewed contributions, such as book reviews, interviews with leading scholars, and abstracts of recent PhD theses.
The Journal is published by an independent non-profit foundation (‘stichting’) in the Netherlands, the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics Foundation, supported by the Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE) at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. The Journal disavows any commercial interest in the work it publishes.
The Journal is committed to supporting maximum access to scholarly work without compromising quality or academic freedom. In accordance with this, the entire contents of every issue is permanently and universally available online without subscription or payment barriers.
Authors retain copyright over their work published in the Journal. The Journal will not re-publish any article, for example in translations, anthologies, and so on, without the Author’s explicit consent. Authors grant the Journal a perpetual but non-exclusive licence to publish the Version of Scholarly Record of their articles. After publication, Authors are free to share their articles, or to republish them elsewhere, so long as the original publication in EJPE is explicitly cited. Copyright over all material remains with the authors and inquiries concerning further use of material published in EJPE beyond the normal academic usage should therefore be addressed to the authors themselves. More general queries about copyright should be addressed to the EJPE editors.
Treatment of Submissions
The Journal undertakes to evaluate submission on the basis of their academic relevance, coherence, scholarship, significance, and without regard to such characteristics of the Author as institution affiliation, nationality, religion, gender, or political views. On receiving a submission, the Journal's editors assess its interest for the Journal and whether it should be passed on for peer-review. All retained article submissions are anonymously double-blind peer-reviewed by at least 2 experts in the relevant field(s). Where reviewers disagree substantially, the Editors may request further referee reports or arbitrate using their own judgement. The Editors may also commission further review of a revised paper by the original referees if they consider it necessary. Referees are encouraged to provide constructive feedback and advice for the author whatever their overall recommendation. The Journal aims to provide authors with the full review reports and a formal notification of (conditional) acceptance or rejection within 2–3 months of submitting an article. Accepted papers will be copy-edited to the conventions of academic style in cooperation with the Author and at the expense of the Journal, and published in the next possible issue.
Each submission is managed by a single Journal Editor from start to finish. Editors owe their assigned Authors due care, fairness, and respect. That includes such performances as:
- honest, prompt, consistent, and polite communication;
- protecting the anonymity of submissions and the moral rights of Authors’ over their work;
- appointing relevant experts as Referees;
- managing the peer-review process efficiently so that Authors receive a decision quickly (if possible within 2 months), and keeping Authors informed about any delays.
Final decisions are made by the Editors. The peer-review process is not supposed to replace their judgement, but to provide expert resources to guide it. Editorial decisions will at all times be founded on academic standards, but will also take into account the practical requirements of managing an academic publication.
See our detailed Author Guidelines. By submitting to the Journal, Authors (including Authors of book reviews and critical comments) declare that:
- their article is not substantively similar to one that they have published previously or that is presently under consideration at any other publication;
- their article clearly distinguishes their own thinking from the ideas and claims developed by others, following best academic practice in their citation and referencing;
- all relevant legal obligations (copyright permissions, defamation, and the like) have been complied with;
- any substantive conflict of interest known to the Author—that might lead a third party to question the neutrality of the article—has been declared to the Editors.
The Editors may reject a submission without further justification if any of these declarations is false or incomplete. The Journal will take no responsibility for legal liabilities resulting from Authors’ failure to comply with relevant law, such as concerning copyright.
In cases of multiple Authors, the corresponding Author is responsible for ensuring that co-authors are properly credited, and that they have been adequately informed and consulted at every stage in the publication process.
If an Author discovers a significant error in their article after publication, they should notify the Editor immediately and cooperate in its correction or retraction.
Peer review is essential to the functioning of the Journal. It grounds Editors' decisions on publication and also assists Authors in improving their work.
Relations to Authors
Reviews should be conducted objectively and focus entirely on the academic content of the manuscripts. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Remarks intended for the Author should be phrased carefully and respectfully.
Review manuscripts are confidential documents: they must not be shared or discussed with others (unless with the explicit permission of the Editor). The anonymity of Referees will be protected by the Editor, unless that right is explicitly waived by the Referee.
Relations to Editors
The central task for a Referee is to evaluate the scholarly originality, coherence, and significance of a submission.
By commissioning a review report the Editors undertake to consider it seriously in coming to their decision. Nevertheless, Editors make their final decisions not merely on the basis of the Referees’ conclusions, but on the persuasiveness of their reasoning, especially when Referees disagree in their reports.
It is essential that Referees explain their conclusions in a way that the Editors can understand as non-experts in the topic of the submission.
Anyone invited to review a paper should refuse, or should notify the relevant Editor as early as possible, if they
- do not believe they are sufficiently expert in the academic area of the paper to evaluate its originality and significance;
- realise they will not be able to complete the review within the allotted time (Editors may also cancel a review in cases of undue or unexplained delays);
- have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the Authors or their institution (having recognised the Author’s identity despite the Editors’ efforts to protect anonymity).
If Authors, Referees or others have a complaint to make about the conduct of any Editor(s), or about some action of the Journal as a whole, they should first contact the Journal itself. They should send an email with the header "COMPLAINT" to the Journal’s official email address email@example.com explaining the substance of their complaint and who it concerns. If the complaint concerns a particular Editor, it will be addressed by a different Editor.
Note that the Journal does not take sides in personal, political, or institutional disputes and will not consider complaints based on such type of disagreements. However, cogent critical comments on published articles or on book reviews will be considered for publication.
If the Journal Editors fail to satisfactorily address a complaint, or in the case of a very serious complaint indeed, or if a person wishes to report a complaint anonymously, then the complaint should be directed to the Journal’s Editorial Oversight Board, an independent governance and consultancy body made up of retired EJPE editors, at firstname.lastname@example.org.