Author Guidelines

Guidelines for Research Articles

In Miscelánea Filosófica ἀρχή Revista Electrónica, a research article is considered to be an academic work that meets the following criteria of excellence, originality, and rigor:

1. Nature and Content

• Originality and Knowledge Production: The article must be the result of original, unpublished research that contributes new findings or perspectives to the field of philosophical and humanistic archiving and critique, transdisciplinary approaches, or issues related to methodological problems in the social or exact sciences. Manuscripts that have been previously published or are under consideration by other journals will not be accepted.

• Rationale and Discussion: It must include a clear exposition of the data or objects of study used, as well as an objective discussion of the results. The author is expected to provide sufficient information so that other specialists can follow the thread of the research and confirm or refute the interpretations put forward.

• Thematic Scope: The content must align with the journal’s topics, which include philosophy, its relationship with scientific methodology, and multidisciplinary work with exact sciences, social sciences, or humanities.

2. Evaluation and Quality Criteria

• Peer Review (Double-Blind): In order to guarantee scientific validity, every research article will undergo an external peer review process under the double-blind modality.

• Acceptance Standards: The Editorial Committee and reviewers shall base their decision on thematic relevance, originality of the approach, and clarity of exposition. Manuscripts that do not meet the required level of quality or that fail to conform to the journal’s scientific objectives may be rejected outright.

3. Ethical Integrity

• Plagiarism Detection: A zero-tolerance policy is maintained toward plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and data manipulation, which are considered serious scientific misconduct.

• Conflicts of Interest: Authors must declare any commercial or financial ties that may have influenced the results of their research. (Format)

4. Formal Requirements

• Technical Structure: The manuscript must include a precise title (maximum 15 words), an analytical abstract, keywords in Spanish and English, the body of the article, and an alphabetical list of bibliographic references.

• Length: To be considered in this category, the manuscript must have a minimum length of 10,000 words and must not exceed 15,000 words. (Format)

• Use of AI Tools: In the event that Artificial Intelligence tools have been used for any stage of the writing or analysis, the author must explicitly declare this, detailing the tool and the purpose of its use. (Format)

Guidelines for Reflection and Humanities Articles
In this section, the journal seeks works that transcend the mere description of data to focus on critical analysis, interpretation, and conceptual proposals from philosophy and the various areas of the humanities.

1. Focus and Interdisciplinarity

• Multidimensional Approach: Articles that address philosophical topics from diverse disciplinary approaches or, conversely, that analyze social, cultural, political, or scientific problems by employing conceptual notions and tools characteristic of philosophy are considered.

• Dialogue among Knowledges: The primary objective is to enable a rapprochement between the humanities and the sciences in general, fostering a reflection that is relevant for multidisciplinary work.

• Critical Vision: As in standard academic essays, the author is expected to present a reflective, critical, and properly documented vision.

2. Format and Accepted Genres

• Narrative Flexibility: Works framed within the argumentative-demonstrative genre are accepted, provided they are not limited to aesthetic-literary expression but include the development and theoretical grounding of a philosophical problem or one pertaining to the sciences and humanities.

• Structure Requirements: Despite their freer format, these articles must comply with the basic academic elements: title (maximum 15 words), abstract (between 130 and 200 words), and five keywords in Spanish and English. (Format)

• Length: For interdisciplinary reflection works, the maximum length allowed is 4,500 words.

3. Quality and Academic Rigor

• Editorial Evaluation: All proposals will be reviewed and approved by the Organizing Committee, which reserves the right to admit only those works that meet the journal’s topics and objectives.

• Citation Standards: Regardless of the argumentative genre adopted, references and citations within the body of the text must strictly adhere to APA 7th edition style to guarantee academic integrity and correct authorship attribution. When citing classical works, conventional citation shall be used (for example, Bekker pagination for Aristotle: “Indignation is the mean between envy and malice, and these are feelings relating to the pain or pleasure we feel at what happens to our neighbors.” Aristotle, EN 1108b).

• Excellence: The publication of these articles is governed by standards of rigor, quality, and academic excellence, ensuring that the content constitutes a valuable contribution to the academic and cultural community.

4. Author Commitments

• Declaration of Originality: The author must guarantee that their reflection is an original and unpublished creation. (Format)

• Transparency in the Use of AI: Should Artificial Intelligence tools have been used for idea generation, translation, or style revision, the author is obliged to explicitly declare their use, detailing the tool and the purpose. (Format)

Guidelines for Discussion and Debate Articles
In Miscelánea Filosófica ἀρχή, this section is intended to foster active intellectual exchange, enabling academic discussion of ideas on current research or works published preferentially in the journal.

1. Nature of Contributions

• Academic Dialogue: Discussion works are those that critically analyze, question, or expand upon the theses of other articles published in the journal or that address current debates in the field of philosophy and the humanities.

• Critical Contribution: They must offer a novel contribution to philosophical, humanistic, and transdisciplinary literature, grounded in primary and secondary sources, and avoid being mere expressions of disagreement without theoretical basis.

• Research Character: Like the main articles, discussions and debates are considered research works and must uphold the same standards of rigor, quality, and academic excellence.

2. Evaluation and Publication Process

• Double-Blind Peer Review: All proposals will be subjected to an external peer review process under the double-blind modality to guarantee the impartiality and objectivity of the critique.

• Expedited Management: When dealing with discussions of works specifically published in this journal, the peer review process may be expedited. In the event of a favorable decision, publication in the following immediate issue will be sought to maintain the currency of the debate.

• Right of Reply: The journal recognizes the right of criticized authors to submit a response, which shall follow the same evaluation process.

3. Format and Length Requirements

• Maximum Length: The manuscript must not exceed 6,000 words, including footnotes and bibliographic references. (Format)

• Academic Structure: It must include a title (maximum 15 words), an abstract in Spanish and English (maximum 150 words), and five keywords in Spanish and English.

• Style and Citation: The text shall be presented in 12-point font, 1.5 line spacing, and be justified. APA 7th edition style must be rigorously followed. When citing classical works, conventional citation shall be used (for example, Bekker pagination for Aristotle: “Indignation is the mean between envy and malice, and these are feelings relating to the pain or pleasure we feel at what happens to our neighbors.” Aristotle, EN 1108b).

4. Ethical Commitments

• Originality: The texts must be unpublished and not under simultaneous consideration by another publication.

• Academic Conduct: The use of hostile stances is prohibited; critiques must be objective, constructive, and respectful of the intellectual independence of others.

• Transparency in the Use of AI: The author must explicitly declare whether Artificial Intelligence tools have been employed for the elaboration of outlines, drafting of rough versions, or grammatical revision, detailing the tool and the prompts used. (Format)

• Integrity: The absence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation will be strictly monitored.

Guidelines for Book Reviews
This section is devoted to the examination of recently published works that deal, wholly or partially, with philosophical problems or topics of relevance to the humanities, transdisciplinary studies, and the social or exact sciences.

1. Common Eligibility Requirements

• Currency of the Work: Only reviews of books whose publication date is no more than three years prior to the year of the current call for papers will be accepted.

• Identification: The complete bibliographic reference of the reviewed book must be provided at the beginning of the text.

• Language: The review may be written in Spanish or English.

• Exemption from Abstract: Unlike research articles, reviews do not require an abstract or keywords.

2. Descriptive Reviews (Informative)

• Purpose: Their objective is to present, in a concise and coherent manner, the fundamental content of the work, its chapters, and its main theses.

• Structure: They have a free structure, provided that expository clarity and a logical organization of the content are maintained.

• Length: The text must be brief, generally ranging between 1,500 and 2,500 words, or not exceeding two pages in length. (Format)

3. Critical Reviews (Recensions)

• Purpose: In addition to informing about the content, they must include a documented critical assessment. The author is expected to analyze the originality of the work, its contributions in relation to the existing literature, or to establish a polemical dialogue with its theses.

• Length: Owing to their greater analytical depth, the maximum length allowed for critical reviews is 4,000 words.

• Editorial Rigor: These contributions must strictly adhere to the stylistic and referencing format required for research articles. (Format)

Evaluation: Reviews will be examined by the Editorial Committee to determine their pertinence and scientific quality before being accepted for publication.

Guidelines for Research Articles in Special Thematic Dossiers
This section is intended for the publication of contributions that form part of monographic issues or special supplements, centered on a topic of exceptional relevance to the philosophical, humanistic, scientific, and interdisciplinary academic community.

1. Definition and Purpose

• Thematic Focus: Dossier articles must address the specific topic previously defined in the special call for papers, contributing a novel, original, and recent contribution to the current literature with solid theoretical and methodological foundations.

• Special Character: These issues do not have a fixed periodicity and are published according to the availability of relevant proposals and the decision of the Editorial Committee.

2. Organization and Coordination

• Guest Editors: Dossiers may be coordinated by Guest Editors, selected by the Editorial Direction based on their expertise in the topic. These coordinators oversee the editorial process of the supplement under the guidance of the Direction.

• Scientific Quality: The Editorial Board is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the contents of the dossier maintain scientific quality and avoid malpractice.

3. Evaluation Process

• Academic Rigor: Despite their thematic character, all included articles are subject to the same rigorous external double-blind peer review process as the regular issues.

• Acceptance Criteria: In order to be published, manuscripts must receive positive evaluations based on their relevance, originality, and clarity of exposition.

4. Technical and Format Requirements

• Length and Style: These contributions must strictly adhere to the stylistic and referencing format requested for research articles. (Format)

5. Ethical and Integrity Commitments

• Originality: The author guarantees that the submission is unpublished, that it is not under consideration by another journal, and that they have the necessary authorizations to reproduce protected material.

• Use of AI: The use of any Artificial Intelligence tool in the preparation of the work must be explicitly declared, specifying the tool, the purpose, and the prompts used. (Format)

• Transparency: Authors must declare any conflicts of interest and mention the funding sources that made the research possible. (Format)

Guidelines for the Miscellany Section
In order for a note to be published in the Miscellany section of the journal Miscelánea Filosófica ἀρχή, it must meet the following criteria of content, form, and editorial character:

Content and Approach Criteria

• Interdisciplinarity: The work must address philosophical or humanistic topics by employing conceptual and methodological tools from other areas of knowledge, or else treat social, cultural, political, or biological issues from philosophical notions.

• Theoretical Development: It is not enough to merely state a philosophical problem; the work must present a clear development and theoretical grounding that relates the chosen discipline to philosophy.

• Flexibility of Genre: Diverse formats are accepted, such as notes on ongoing research (especially by graduate students), academic essays, fieldwork chronicles, and research results reports.

• Originality: The works must be unpublished or have the necessary authorization to reproduce copyright-protected material. (Format)

Technical and Formatting Requirements

• Length: The text must not exceed 4,500 words.

• Title: It must have a title of no more than 15 words.

• Language: Submissions are accepted in Spanish or English.

• Typography and Style: The file must be in (Format)

• Citations and References: APA style guidelines must be strictly followed for bibliographic references at the end of the text and for citations within the body of the document.

• Author Bio: It is mandatory to include a brief biographical statement (maximum 250 words) and the author's email address in a footnote immediately after their name.

Special Editorial Conditions

• Selection Process: Unlike research articles, these works are not subjected to rigorous double-blind peer review. The Organizing Committee and the Section Editorial Committee reserve the right to accept or reject proposals based on their pertinence to the journal’s topics.

• Identification: These publications, which are of an informative nature, will not be assigned a DOI identifier.

• Privacy: The personal data provided will be used exclusively for internal editorial purposes.

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy
For the journal Miscelánea Filosófica ἀρχή, the double-blind peer review policy is founded on the highest standards of rigor, impartiality, and academic excellence to guarantee the scientific validity of its contents.

1. Phases of the Evaluation Process
The editorial process is divided into two main stages to ensure the quality of contributions:

• Preliminary Review (Editorial Filter): Upon receipt of the submission, the Organizing Committee and internal committees (such as the Editorial Committee) carry out an initial assessment to validate thematic pertinence, relevance, and strict compliance with formatting and content standards. At this stage, it is verified that the article aligns with the journal’s topics (Philosophy and its relationship with other sciences) and that it meets the technical requirements (APA 7th edition format, length, metadata, and declaration of originality). Manuscripts that do not reach the required level of quality or do not conform to the journal’s objectives may be rejected outright.

• External Peer Review (Double-Blind): Manuscripts that pass the first phase are submitted to an external peer review process under the double-blind modality, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly anonymous.

2. Assignment of Reviewers and Evaluation Criteria

• Reviewer Profile: Each research article, critical note, or debate is evaluated by at least two specialists external to the publishing institution to guarantee the impartiality and objectivity of the critique.

• Evaluation Criteria: The evaluations are based on the originality of the approach, theoretical and methodological soundness, clarity of exposition, and the novel contribution to current philosophical or humanistic literature.

• Resolution of Discrepancies: For a work to be published, it generally requires two positive evaluations. In the event of a marked discrepancy between the first two reviewers (for example, an "accepted" verdict and a "rejected" verdict), the report of a third reviewer will be sought to break the tie and reach a final, unappealable decision.

• Right of Reply: The journal recognizes the authors’ right to intellectual independence, and in the event of receiving a negative evaluation, they are granted the right of reply to defend their arguments.

3. Ethics and Confidentiality in Evaluation

• Confidentiality: Committee members and reviewers are obliged to maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the texts received. No reviewer may use data, arguments, or interpretations from unpublished works for their own research without express permission.

• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline the review if they detect any personal, professional, or institutional connection with the author, or if the work is closely related to research they themselves are currently developing.

• Integrity and Plagiarism Detection: During the peer review, originality is strictly monitored and tools are employed to detect plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation. Likewise, it is verified that the author has declared the use of Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of the manuscript.

4. Estimated Timeframes
The journal is committed to managing the editing process within reasonable timeframes. The evaluation process may take an average of six months from receipt to the communication of the final decision. In cases of discussions on articles already published in the journal, an expedited peer review process may be applied.

Note: This policy applies rigorously to Research Articles, Reflection Articles, Discussions, and Dossiers; the Miscellany section is exempt from this peer review process as it is of an informative nature.