Updated: September 9, 2016 (CB)
CFPs for future Reason Papers Symposia
9/11 Fifteen Years Later: What have we learned? What should we do?
Reason Papers is soliciting contributions for a Fall 2016 symposium that reflects on the state of America fifteen years after the shocking events of 9/11. With the hindsight that only time and careful scrutiny can yield, submissions from various disciplines are invited to engage with epistemological, moral, political, historical, and legal issues, including but not limited to: intelligence gathering, security and liberty, surveillance and privacy, international anti-terrorism efforts, the politics and economics of rebuilding, emergencies, memory and memorialization, non-state actors and war. Submissions are due by November 1, 2016.
Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl’s The Perfectionist Turn
In conjunction with a session to be held by the American Association for the Philosophic Study of Society at the APA’s Eastern Division meeting in January 2017, Reason Papers is soliciting additional contributions for a Spring 2017 symposium on Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl’s forthcoming book The Perfectionist Turn: From Meta-Norms to Meta-Ethics. This latest book by Rasmussen and Den Uyl focuses on “individualistic perfectionism,” making a case for the connection between perfectionist ethics and non-perfectionist politics and defending it against rival contemporary theories of ethics and politics. Submissions are due by April 15, 2017.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A Change of Editorial Policy (as of June 2015)
The journal is now on a twice-yearly publication schedule, publishing one issue in the late spring and the other in the late fall.
We’re in the process of making some significant changes at Reason Papers:
1. Irfan Khawaja has stepped down as Co-Editor; his replacement is Shawn Klein. Meanwhile, Carrie-Ann Biondi will continue as a Co-Editor, and Irfan will become Editor-at-Large.
Shawn teaches in the Philosophy Department at Arizona State University and been affiliated with Rockford University’s Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. He’s also an editor for The Philosopher’s Index, runs a couple of blogs (including a philosophy blog and the very popular Sports Ethicist blog), and has done a fair bit of editing and publishing, including at least one piece (PDF) he published in Reason Papers in 2012. In addition, he co-directs the American Association for the Philosophic Study of Society with Jennifer Baker (College of Charleston).
2. We’ll be changing our manuscript submission policy from double-blind peer-review to a “discretionary peer review” policy resembling that adopted by Critical Review and Social Philosophy and Policy.
Unfortunately, over the past few years, we’d found that our policy of automatically sending all Articles out for double-blind peer review process had become time-consuming and cumbersome without necessarily improving the quality of manuscript submissions to the journal. Our hope is that the new policy will streamline manuscript submission and improve manuscript quality while retaining the advantages of double-blind peer review. The new policy is as follows:
Peer review will be undertaken at the discretion of the Co-Editors, in anonymous form; authors will receive copies of referees’ comments. Peer review may also be undertaken if requested at the time of submission by an author concerned to satisfy the demands of the job market. However, Symposium contributions, Discussion Notes, Review Essays, Book Reviews, and Afterwords will typically not be subject to peer review (including peer review upon request). In all cases, the Editors (including the Book/Film Review Editor) may reject a given submission as inappropriate, or suggest revisions. In the case of a disagreement between the Book/Film Review Editor and the Co-Editors, the Co-Editors will have the last word. Authors should in most cases expect extensive editorial queries and be prepared to entertain extensive requests for revision (including substantive revision).
(Thanks to Jeffrey Friedman at Critical Review for generous advice on revising the peer review process, and for permission to use Critical Review‘s Style Guidelines as the basis for the revisions we’ve made to our own policies.)