Acta Philosophica is meant to be a tool for dialogue between the different sectors within philosophy, and between philosophy, science, and theology. While maintining the rigor of a scientific contribution, the texts proposed to the journal must offer sufficient indications such that the non-specialized can appreciate the content. This need is particularly felt in the texts of analytic philosophy, logic, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science, as well as in the presentation of contemporary thinkers.
Although it promotes interdisciplinary work, the journal does not publish contributions whose content and methods are not predominantly philosophical, eg. literary criticism, sociology or systematic theology. Moreover, although it is not aimed exclusively at the specialist, the journal does not publish articles that are educational or too general.
1. Article submissions should include a brief curriculum of the author and should be addressed to the Editorial Office of «Acta Philosophica» (Via dei Farnesi, 82, I-00186 Roma; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org). Ordinarily it is sufficient to email the collaborative file in Word or RTF format. The Editorial Secretary will then submit these files to the blind referees and inform the author within three months, in writing, if the article has been accepted for publication. The evaluation process for all articles is suspended during the months of July, August and December.
2. All submitted works (articles, reviews and bibliographic records) must be unpublished and must not have been simultaneously submitted to other journals for evaluation. Every article must be accompanied by both a brief English abstract and four or five English keywords. A ‘ready for blind peer review’ copy of the file must be sent, together with the original version of the text.
3. The length of Studies (Studi) submissions should not exceed 70,000 characters (11,000 words), including keywords, abstract, spaces and footnotes. Notes (Note) submissions are limited to 45,000 characters (7,000 words), including keywords, abstract, spaces and footnotes. The author’s name should immediately follow the title, along with a note containing the author’s email, full address, and academic institution. Both the Studies and Notes must be divided into paragraphs with Arabic numerals and subtitles. All notes must be formatted as footnotes, not endnotes.
Editors can request a consistent reduction of accepted submissions, e.g. to make them match the parameters of a Note.
4. Studies must include a summary that reflects the divisions of the work in addition to the abstract.
5. Citations should have the following structure:
a) for books:
S.L. Brock, Action and Conduct, T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1998, pp. 95-102.
b) for collaborations of a collective work:
P. Sabuy Sabangu, Cultura e razionalità, la pluralità delle culture e l’interculturalità, in F. Russo (a cura di), Natura, cultura, libertà, Armando, Roma 2010, pp. 39-63.
c) for journal articles:
M. Pakaluk, The Great Question of Practical Truth, and a Diminutive Answer, «Acta Philosophica», I/19 (2010), pp. 145-160.
When a work is cited more than once in an article, it should be written as, S.L. Brock, o.c., p. 171; or, if the title is repeated, S.L. Brock, Action and Conduct, cit., p. 171. It is better to avoid "pub." or "publisher", except in cases where the word is an integral part of a name.
6. Quotations occurring within another quotation should be indicated using a different sign ("text") from the one that defines the text and contains the quote («text»). Words in languages different from that used in the main text should be written in italics, without quotation marks.
7. Zotero users can download the style of «Acta Philosophica»: http://www.zotero.org/styles
8. Book Reviews (Recensioni) and Comments (Schede): Book Reviews should not exceed 12,000 characters (1,800 words) including spaces, while Comments should not exceed 6,000 characters (950 words). Footnotes should be avoided. The book presentation should follow the same format as citations (see above, 5a), although the author's proper name should be written in full. The name of the reviewer should be written at the end. For example:
John F. Wippel, The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas. From Finite Being to Uncreated Being, Monographs of the Society for Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy no. 1, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D. C. 2000, pp. xxvii + 630.
(text of review)
(name of reviewer)
9. The Editors could eventually accept for evaluation a manuscript that does not match all the requirements mentioned above, provided that the Author agrees to meet them before submitting a final version of it.