Philosophisches Jahrbuch

About

The journal is published twice a year and offers a wide-ranging, ambitious programme. Rigorously selected contributions present philosophical treatises from theoretical and practical fields, and share historical analyses and discoveries. Initiative essays by eminent philosophers are discussed in depth by invited ‘sparring partners’ in regular yearbook controversies. Critical reports and discussions provide an overview of trends in philosophical development. Important new philosophical publications are presented in book reviews; alongside these are the detailed, critical and further-reaching reviews.

Editors

Published by the Görres-Gesellschaft

  • Thomas Buchheim (managing)
  • Andrea Kern
  • Matthias Lutz-Bachmann
  • Isabelle Mandrella
  • irmin Stekeler-Weithofer
  • Wilhelm Vossenkuhl

Advisory Board

  • Hiroshi Abe (Kyoto)
  • Karl Ameriks (Notre Dame)
  • Emil Angehrn (Basel)
  • Manfred Baum (Wuppertal)
  • Myriam Bienenstock (Tours)
  • Rémi Brague (München)
  • Christine Chwaszcza (Köln)
  • Donatella Di Cesare (Rom)
  • Christoph Demmerling (Jena)
  • Mechthild Dreyer (Mainz)
  • Alexander Fidora (Barcelona)
  • Günter Figal (Freiburg)
  • Rainer Forst (Frankfurt/M.)
  • Raimond Gaita (London)
  • Marcela García (Los Angeles)
  • Petra Gehring (Darmstadt)
  • Carl Friedrich Gethmann (Siegen)
  • Michael Großheim (Rostock)
  • Stephan Grotz (Linz)
  • Stephan Hartmann (München)
  • Marion Heinz (Siegen)
  • Wolfram Hogrebe (Bonn)
  • Ludger Honnefelder (Bonn)
  • Vittorio Hösle (Notre Dame)
  • Johannes Hübner (Halle/S.)
  • Christian Illies (Bamberg)
  • Hidé Ishiguro (Tokyo)
  • Marco Ivaldo (Neapel)
  • Christoph Kann (Düsseldorf)
  • Heiner Klemme (Halle/S.)
  • Nikola Kompa (Osnabrück)
  • Michelle Kosch (Ithaca)
  • Katharina Kraus (Notre Dame)
  • Armin Kreiner (München)
  • Alejandro Llano (Pamplona)
  • Winfried Löffler (Innsbruck)
  • Christian Martin (München)
  • Erasmus Mayr (Erlangen-Nürnberg)
  • Roberta De Monticelli (Mailand)
  • Karin Nisenbaum (Syracuse)
  • Jörg Noller (München)
  • Kristof Nyirí (Budapest)
  • Mathias Obert (Kaohsiung)
  • Ryôsuke Ohashi (Kyoto)
  • Elif Özmen (Gießen)
  • Onora O’Neill (Cambridge)
  • Volker Peckhaus (Paderborn)
  • Dominik Perler (Berlin)
  • Julia Peters (München)
  • Michael Quante (Münster)
  • Nicholas Rescher (Pittsburgh)
  • Friedo Ricken † (München)
  • Thomas Ricklin † (München)
  • Edmund Runggaldier (Innsbruck)
  • Stephan Schick (Leipzig)
  • Thomas Schmidt (Frankfurt/M.)
  • Yossef Schwartz (Tel Aviv)
  • Ludwig Siep (Münster)
  • Andreas Speer (Köln)
  • Eleonore Stump (St. Louis)
  • Gabriele Tomasi (Padua)
  • Peter Trawny (Wuppertal)
  • Dietmar von der Pfordten (Göttingen)
  • Robert Yelle (München)
  • Paul Ziche (Utrecht)

Editorial office

  • PD Dr. Jörg Noller
  • Max Stange M.A.

redaktion.phj@lrz.uni-muenchen.de

Guidelines for Authors

Publishing Open Access

The Journal Philosophisches Jahrbuch is not an open access journal. However, it is possible to publish individual articles in the journal open access by making the digital version freely available under a Creative Commons license chosen by the respective author(s). The publisher requires a fee to cover the publication costs (Article Processing Charge – APC) in the amount of 1,990.00 EUR (plus VAT). Many scientific institutions and science funding bodies provide corresponding funds for the publication of research results.

Are you interested in this option? Talk to your editorial office or contact open-access@nomos.de!

Peer Review Process

Characterization of book review/review.

A book review can be given either for a specific book or collective work or for several thematically related books/contributions/collections reviewed under a common philosophical aspect. A book review must, apart from the selective critical appreciation from the reviewer’s point of view, in any case present the main contents and central theses of the whole reviewed submission(s) in an informative way for readers.

Formally, the report differs from a review in that the former, as philosophically independent, is ­subjected to the anonymous acceptance procedure for all ­independent contributions, whereas a review (as an account dependent on the book being reviewed), identified by name, is merely examined by the editorial board and the managing editor and, if certain standards are met, is normally accepted without further ado. One of the standard conditions for reviews is that the length and importance of the reviewed book be in reasonable proportion to the size of the review, in accordance with customary practice.

 Characterization of reports and contributions to discussions

A report considers a current philosophical question in light of a broader or even controversial discussion. This can take the form of either reporting on and commenting on one or more conferences devoted to the question in question, or in the form of a survey of several articles/collective volumes/books published on the subject, ­or a mixture of both. It would also be conceivable in the form of a contrast between classical philosophical views and one (or more) prominent current statements on the subject. What is important in any case is the illumination of the same topic from different points of view that have been or are or could be related to it and the author’s own evaluation and statement on the topic against a background thus outlined.

Formally, the report differs from a review in that the former, as philosophically independent, is ­subjected to the anonymous acceptance procedure for all ­independent contributions, whereas a review (as an account dependent on the book being reviewed), identified by name, is merely examined by the editorial board and the managing editor and, if certain standards are met, is normally accepted without further ado.­ One of the standard conditions for reviews is that the length and importance of the reviewed book be in reasonable proportion to the size of the review, in accordance with customary practice.

A report or contribution to a discussion considers a current philosophical question the light of a broader or even controversial discussion. This can take the form either of reporting on and commenting on one or more conferences devoted to the question in question, or in the form of a survey of several contributions/collective volumes/books published on the subject, ­or a mixture of both.

Useful and relevant here is also the form of a contrast between classical philosophical views and one (or more) prominent current statements on the subject. Important in any case is the illumination of the same topic from different points of view, which have been or are or could be related to it and the author’s own evaluation and statement on the topic against such a sketched background.

Abstracting & Indexing

  • Baidu Xueshu
  • Dimensions
  • Google Scholar
  • ProQuest

Copyright