Journal of World Philosophies is a bi-annual, peer-reviewed, international journal dedicated to comparative thought. It seeks to explore common spaces and differences between philosophical traditions in a global context. Without postulating cultures as monolithic, homogenous, or segregated wholes, it aspires to address key philosophical issues which bear on specific methodological, epistemological, hermeneutic, ethical, social, and political questions in comparative thought.
Journal of World Philosophies aims to develop the contours of a philosophical understanding not subservient to dominant paradigms and provide a platform for diverse philosophical voices, including those long silenced by dominant academic discourses and institutions. Journal of World Philosophies also endeavors to serve as a juncture where specific philosophical issues of global interest may be explored in an imaginative, thought-provoking, and pioneering way. We welcome innovative and persuasive ways of conceptualizing, articulating, and representing intercultural encounters. Contributions should be able to facilitate the development of new perspectives on current global thought-processes and sketch the outlines of salient future developments.
- Frequency: Biannual
- eISSN: 2474-1795
- Keywords: comparative philosophy, comparison, cross-cultural philosophy, crosscultural dialogue, cross-cultural understanding, interculturality, intercultural dialogue, intercultural philosophy, intercultural understanding, global values, philosophy in a global context
- First Issue: Volume 1, Issue 1 (December 2016)
- Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach (University of Konstanz, Germany)
- Amy Donahue (Keenesaw State University, USA)
- Douglas L. Berger (Southern Illinois University, USA)
- Robert Bernasconi (Pennsylvania State University, USA)
- Horacio Cerutti-Guldberg (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico)
- Nader El-Bizri (American University of Beirut, Lebanon)
- Jonardon Ganeri (New York University)
- Sally Grande (Connecticut College, USA)
- Peter S. Groff (Bucknell University, USA)
- Clevis Headley (Florida Atlantic University, USA)
- Chike Jeffers (Dalhousie University, Canada)
- Leigh Jenco (London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
- Leah Kalmanson (Drake University, USA)
- David Haekwon Kim (University of San Francisco, USA)
- Rauna Kuokkanen (University of Toronto, Canada)
- Dismas Masolo (University of Louisville, USA)
- Breny Mendoza (California State University, USA)
- A. Raghuramaraju (University of Hyderabad, India)
- Henry Rosemont, Jr. (Brown University, USA)
- Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark (University of Victoria, Canada)
- Shigeru Taguchi (Hokkaido University, Japan)
- Zhihua Yao (Chinese University of Hong Kong, SAR, China)
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Editors will:
strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
constantly improve the journal;
actively seek the views of readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members about ways to improve the journal’s processes;
ensure the quality of the published material;
facilitate freedom of expression;
maintain the integrity of the academic record;
publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed; and
have processes and procedures for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
Relations with Authors
The editors ensure that articles and survey articles are reviewed by suitably qualified referees in a fair and unbiased manner.
Articles are peer reviewed by two to three reviewers using a double-blind process.
Authors receive a detailed report on reviewer comments within two months of review.
Upon receipt of reviewers’ comments, suggestions, and requests for changes necessary for publication, authors are asked to address all comments and suggestions by the reviewers in the resubmitted article.
Editorial decisions to accept or reject an article for publication are based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
Authors should acknowledge all sources used in research and cite publications that have been influential in their research work.
Authors are requested to disclose research funders and their role in the research funded.
The editors respect authors’ decisions that particular individuals should not review their articles, if these requests are practicable and well-reasoned.
Relations with Reviewers
Reviewers will receive guidelines on what is expected of them.
All peer reviewers’ identities are blind and protected.
Reviewers are requested to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
Reviewers are informed to the best of our knowledge on who has funded the research and on the role of the funders in the research.
Reviewers will not be approached where a conflict of interest is detected.
We encourage reviewers to comment on the originality of the submissions, be alert to redundant publications, and help us detect plagiarism.
Complaints and concerns will be immediately addressed by investigating the validity of the complaint and taking appropriate steps.
The editors encourage scholarly discussion and debate. Cogent criticisms of published work may be addressed and, depending on length, such comment(s) may be published as a follow-up article. (Note: The Journal of World Philosophies does not have a “letters to the editor” column.)
Encouraging Academic Integrity
We aim to ensure that research material published conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Authors are requested to sign a Consent to Publish Agreement, and when accompanied by images, a permissions agreement for illustrations and artwork must be submitted as well. Submissions will not be published without these documents.
If misconduct is suspected, before taking the matter further we will first seek a response from those accused.
Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record
When it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report has been published, we will endeavor to print a correction promptly and with due prominence.
If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, we will ensure that the retraction is clearly identifiable to readers, aggregators, and indexing systems.
Committee on Public Ethics (COPE)
For the process for dealing with complaints against editors referred to COPE, please see page 3 of the COPE Code of Conduct: http://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf