Submissions should be sent to the Editor, addressed to:

episteme@philosophy.rutgers.edu

We can only accept submissions as an e-mail attachment. Papers should be double-spaced: font in 12 point Times New Roman. There is no need for underlining to denote italics. A covering letter should make explicit reference to the title of the paper and should include all contact information and an abstract. All self-identifying marks should be removed from the article itself to facilitate blind reviews. The first refereed issue of general interest will be published in October 2005. By general interest we mean any topic pertinent to social epistemology - we do have an annual themed issue that is conference-based.

Authors whose papers that have been accepted for publication need to complete a Copyright Assignment Form - download here (pdf). Proofs will be sent to authors on the proviso that there is sufficient time to do so by either the editor or by an Edinburgh University Press representative. Proofs, including proofs of illustrations, are generally supplied for the purposes of making a few cosmetic corrections, not for general revision or numerous alterations. Proof corrections are expected to be made and returned to the within a week of receipt.

The editorial process is as follows:

1. Initial vetting by a Associate Editor with area expertise.

2. Passed to one or more referees.

3. Returned to Associate Editor.

4. Associate Editor makes recommendations to the Editor who makes final decision.

Referees are chosen and instructed in accordance with the following criteria:

1. They have a record of publication in the area or on the topic of the paper;

2. They are not the primary 'target' of whatever critical matter might be included in the paper;

3. They are not known by the Editors to be antecedently hostile to the topic or approach of the paper;

4. They do not currently have an article or discussion note under consideration by EPISTEME;

5. They are not a colleague of the author (s) of the paper.

Referees are required to:

1. Ensure that their recommendations are clear;

2. Provide sufficient rationale for their recommendation;

3. Offer constructive comments that the author can assimilate, rather than merely concentrating upon negative criticism.