Dialectica publishes papers that attract the interest of members of its Editorial Committee and for which a positive case has been successfully made at a EC meeting.
Papers that are not published in Dialectica are not necessarily evaluated negatively; if a paper is not fished (adopted, considered potentially worth making a case for) by Editorial Committee members, this may have a large variety of reasons: lack of interest, of time, of competence, of ideas about suitable referees, of magnanimity etc.
Authors of papers that are not fished are notified after a month.
Papers that are under consideration for longer than a month are read by at least one member of the Editorial Committee in view of making a case for the publication of this paper in an EC meeting; referee reports are commissioned in view of strengthening this case.
If the respective EC members drop their case (possibly in view of negative referee reports), authors are notified and may or may not receive comments on their papers.
If the case is made in an EC meeting, authors are notified of the positive or negative decision of the EC. A positive decision may be conditional on non-substantial, formal improvements or on a shortening of the paper.
By submitting their paper to Dialectica, authors assert that the work is their own and their coauthors’, that all coauthors’ are listed, that Dialectica is assigned the right to publish the article and its revisions under a CC-licence.
Submitted papers should be suitable for blind refereeing and should not contain metadata, citations or acknowledgements that help identify their authors. There are no style guidelines for initial submissions, though accepted papers will need an abstract to be published.
Note: Dialectica’s “fishpond model” for triple-blind refereeing is part of the ongoing research project “the philosophers’ workbench”, funded by swissuniversities. If you have comments or suggestions concerning our version of triple-blind refereeing, please post them here.