The Revista de Filosofía UCSC submits research articles and translations to external peer review. Book reviews are not subject to external peer review but undergo editorial assessment prior to publication.

The evaluation and editorial decision-making process, from receipt of the manuscript to communication of the final decision, is managed through the journal’s electronic platform and comprises three stages. The functions assigned by this policy to the Editor-in-Chief are exercised by the person designated to replace them whenever a conflict of interest arises, in accordance with the policy on Ethics and editorial independence.

First stage: editorial assessment

The Editorial Team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine the manuscript’s suitability for the journal.

In the case of research articles, the assessment considers their alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, the philosophical relevance of the problem addressed, and the existence of a clearly identifiable thesis or objective. It also verifies that the manuscript presents a consistent argumentative development, engages with relevant academic literature, and makes a recognizable contribution to philosophical discussion. This assessment determines whether the manuscript effectively meets the criteria of a research article and satisfies the minimum academic conditions required for submission to external peer review.

In the case of translations, the assessment considers the philosophical and academic relevance of the text, the justification for a new translation, and its contribution to access to, study of, or discussion of the translated work. It also verifies identification of the edition used, the existence of any required permissions and, where appropriate, the inclusion of an introduction or critical apparatus that adequately contextualizes the text.

Book reviews must not be limited to summarizing the content of a work. They must reconstruct its main arguments, situate it within the intellectual development of its author or within the philosophical current or problem to which it belongs, and provide a critical and reasoned assessment of its contributions, scope, and limitations.

At this first stage, the originality and unpublished status of the submission, compliance with essential editorial requirements and, where applicable, the proper anonymization of the file are also verified.

As a result of this assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may reject the manuscript or request revisions. In the case of research articles and translations, the Editor-in-Chief may also submit the manuscript for external review; in the case of book reviews, the Editor-in-Chief may accept the work for publication.

Second stage: external peer review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent specialists external to UCSC, selected according to their expertise in the subject of the manuscript and after declaring the absence of conflicts of interest. Members of the Editorial Team and the Editorial Board do not act as manuscript reviewers.

The review is conducted under a double-anonymous model: the journal does not disclose the identity of the authors to those reviewing the manuscript, nor the identity of the reviewers to those who submitted it.

External peer review focuses on the conceptual and academic aspects of the manuscript. For research articles, particular consideration is given to the originality of the contribution, the rigor and coherence of the argumentation, the relevance of the sources, and the significance of the work for philosophical discussion. For translations, reviewers assess conceptual fidelity and precision, the philosophical and linguistic quality of the translation, the relevance of the translated text and, where applicable, the consistency of its critical apparatus.

Reviewers are not expected to assess purely formal or typographical aspects, except where these affect the comprehension, rigor, or academic consistency of the manuscript.

Reviewers provide reasoned reports and formulate a recommendation of acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. These recommendations do not in themselves constitute an editorial decision and are not binding on the journal.

When the reports are substantially divergent, the manuscript will be sent to a third external reviewer who meets the same conditions of independence, expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest. No member of the Editorial Team or the Editorial Board acts as an adjudicating reviewer in cases of divergent reports.

Manuscripts, supplementary files, personal data, editorial communications, and review reports are confidential. The Editorial Team and reviewers may not reproduce, distribute, disclose to third parties, or use for their own benefit any confidential materials or information obtained during the review process. This obligation continues after the conclusion of the procedure with respect to any information that has not entered the public domain.

For reasons of confidentiality, the Editorial Team and reviewers may not enter, upload, or share, in whole or in part, manuscripts or associated materials in generative artificial intelligence systems, regardless of the intended purpose. The remaining conditions applicable to these tools are established in the policy on Use and limits of artificial intelligence.

The editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who adopts it in consideration of the external reports and the other elements of the process. The Editor-in-Chief may depart from the recommendations for sufficiently grounded academic or ethical reasons; in such cases, the reasons will be recorded in the editorial file and communicated to the authors.

As a result of this stage, the Editor-in-Chief may accept the manuscript, reject it, or request submission of a revised version. The decision and the relevant reports are communicated through the platform, while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers at all times.

Third stage: review of revisions

Every revised version of the manuscript must be accompanied by a response letter in which the authors explain the changes made and indicate their location in the revised version. When a recommendation has not been incorporated, the authors must provide reasoned grounds for that decision. Revised versions submitted without this letter will not proceed in the editorial process.

The Editor-in-Chief examines the revised version and the response letter. When the revisions requested by the reviewers are substantial, the revised version is returned to external review, preferably to the same reviewers; when the revisions are minor, the Editor-in-Chief verifies their incorporation. Depending on the outcome, the manuscript may be accepted, additional revisions may be requested, or it may be rejected.

Revisions may be requested at the conclusion of any of the three stages and do not in themselves imply acceptance of the manuscript.

Timeframes

The preliminary editorial assessment is normally expected to be completed within fifteen days of receipt of the manuscript. The first round of external peer review has an estimated duration of eight weeks from the date on which the manuscript is sent to the reviewers. These timeframes are indicative and may vary according to the availability of specialists, the complexity of the manuscript, and the possible need for additional reviews or revisions.

The process is conducted in accordance with the policy on Ethics and editorial independence. Objections concerning the procedure or an editorial decision are handled in accordance with the policy on Complaints and appeals.

```