Thursday, June 18, 2009

New Journal: "European Journal for Philosophy of Science" (EJPS)

Stathis Psillos announces a new journal on PHILOS-L:
"The Steering Committee of the European Society for Philosophy of Science (EPSA) are pleased to announce that a new journal with the title "European Journal for Philosophy of Science" (EJPS) has been established. EJPS is the official journal of EPSA and is published by Springer. The Editor-in-Chief is Carl Hoefer (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain) and the deputy editor is Mauro Dorato (University of Rome III, Italy). Franz Huber (Konstanz, Germany) Edouard Machery (Pittsburgh, USA), Michela Massimi (London, UK), Samir Okasha (Bristol, UK) and Jesús Zamora (UNED, Spain) are Associate Editors. The first issue of EJPS is due to appear in January 2011. Members of EPSA will get the journal as part of the membership to
EPSA (current rate 40 Euros per year)."

This is splendid news, and I congratulate EPSA. (I have some knowledge of HOPOS' efforts to start a journal [news about that shortly], so I applaud the efforts by Stathis and EPSA.) It's great that they manage to keep the price down (a real concern with Springer journals). Let's wish they can create high standards and obtain a high ESF ranking.
But Stathis, shouldn't you have announced this first here?
Now for the sociological observation: Hoefer and Dorato both have a US PhD and have some HPS sensibilities. Not what I would have predicted (but no surprise about that).


  1. Haha, the title of this journal is an Oxymoron.

    I know a good drinking game. Let's down a shot each time an article in this journal mentions Derrida. And two shots for Levinas.


  2. That's uncalled for 'notedscholar'!

    'Analytic' philosophy is often ignorant and silly in its hostility to 'Continental' philosophy. I also think analytic philosophy of science (which these days is no fan of analytic metaphysics) can be enriched by engagement with continental types (including folks that are target of Sokal hoax). But why should a journal devoted to philosophy of science mention Levinas. (I could see how an article on history of linguistics might benefit from some Derrida.)

  3. I agree with Eric--this is great news, especially if, as I hope, the EJPS will follow the example of more "editorially responsible" journals such as BJPS and not that of Philosophy of Science (which, thanks goodness, is in the process of chainging editorship and I'm sure for the better!).

    (Btw, I don't think anybody is going to play the drinking game with you, noted scholar. Clearly you are already a few drinks ahead ;-))

  4. Does anybody know whether the EPSA has considered to make the journal open access? If not, that's a shame.

    But if they do have considered the option, I wonder what swayed them to make it a closed journal. Out of the top of my head, I can see that getting a journal for €40 a year might be a reason to join the EPSA, and maybe the journal actually will bring money in.

    On the other hand, there are all these arguments for open access journals, not the least of which is the obvious ease with which a high quality can be achieved: Without a publication schedule, only good articles have to be published.

  5. Gabriele, perhaps you don't want to expand on these comments about PoS, but what do you mean with 'editorially responsible?' Is it just time lags in getting stuff published?

  6. Unfortunately, I don't see in current analytic philosophy much that is more relevant to philosophy of science than in continental philosophy. Which one(s) of the three stopped from being philosophy at all?

  7. JESÚS analytic and continental philosophy are both very broad tents. Surely there are nuggets of wisdom and insight to be located in various traditions? An example, Husserl and Heidegger are being used in fruitful ways in a very empirical philosophy of mind (Alva Noe, Evan Thomson, Dan Zahavi, Shaun Gallagher, etc).

  8. I also think they've missed a big opportunity to found a major open access journal, here. It's really too bad.

  9. Hi Eric,

    Long story short--so far I've submitted only two papers to Philosophy of Science. One of them was eventually published but only after two rounds of refereeing each of which lasted half a year and a few e-mails to the (now outgoing) editor, Michael Dickson. The other I have recently decided to withdraw from consideration after eight months without a decision and a few unreplied e-mails to Dickson.

    Anecdotal evidence suggests that my case is far from extraordinary. I find this particularly shocking considering that people who submit papers to Philosophy of Science are also asked to support the journal financially either indirectly (by paying the annual PSA membership dues) or directly (by paying for having their paper refereed).

    Hopefully, things are going to change for the better now that the journal is under new editorship, although the new editor, Jeff Barrett, is likely to have inherited a big mess from his predecessor. I whish him all the best and hope that the PSA will soon have a well-run journal again.

  10. First, a welcome to the EJPS! This is great news, and as a philosopher of science I look forward to reading a new journal devoted to POS.

    Gabriele, as the Executive Secretary of the PSA, I am sorry, but not surprised, to hear of your troubles with the outgoing editorial office of Philosophy of Science. While your experience was not typical, it was far from uncommon. It is no secret that it has been a challenging time for Philosophy of Science. Over the past year I and the PSA officers have worried about these problems and worked hard to address them.

    While Jeff Barrett takes over Philosophy of Science as Editor-in-Chief on July 1, Jeff and his incoming assistant editor, Tucker Lentz, have been hard at work since January to avoid any big messes and to effect a seamless transition to the new editorship. Indeed, submissions to Philosophy of Science have been going to Jeff's office since April 23 of this year. The new editorial office is making use of the Editorial Manager software, and aims to deliver (and, to date, I believe, has delivered) decisions to authors within 60 days. As importantly, they will, I can assure you, respond to all queries from authors promptly!

    Gabriele, I was concerned that you suggested that people had been asked to pay for having a submission to Philosophy of Science refereed. Could you contact me directly to discuss this, at your convenience?

  11. Hi Gary,

    To clarify: I was just referring to the processing fee mentioned by the journal's own website.

    As I said, I hope things are going to change for the better. The early signs are indeed very encouraging. I hope things will continue to go in the right direction. I wish Jeff and all other involved all the best and look forward to the PSA having a well-run journal again.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.