About the Journal

Focus and Scope

RHV (Spanish acronym for Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso) aims to publish original papers in Philosophy within the theoretical and historical frameworks of the following areas: Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Technology, Metaphysics, Ethics, and Political Philosophy.

RHV has a biannual periodicity and publishes in four languages, English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. RHV does not subscribe to any particular doctrine and is open to articles from researchers with different philosophical and global perspectives.

Some issues of the RHV are monographs dedicated to current philosophical issues or to the thinking of active philosophers, and those with international relevance. These numbers will be made from the public call for contributions and according to a double-blind peer review process. 

Peer Review Process

The RHV is a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers' expert in the field. Each paper is assigned by the Editors to the competent area editor. This latter will choose two external referees. They will provide a report on a blind version of the paper and, on this basis, the area editor will make the final decision about publication. However, a single negative report is sufficient to reject the article. We will try to make a decision on every paper within twelve or sixteen weeks.

COVID-19 and impact on peer review

As a result of the significant disruption that is being caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we are very aware that many researchers will have difficulty meeting the timelines associated with our peer review process during normal times. Please do let us know if you need additional time. Our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines but we intend to be highly flexible at this time.

Publication Frequency

RHV is a biannual publication. Since 2022, the journal publishes issues in May and November.

In some cases, a third issue may be published per year, depending on the number of articles received or on the preparation of a monographic issue according to public call.

In the case of monographic issues, the editor of the monograph is responsible for the double-blind refereeing process of the articles and, when they are ready, for uploading them to the journal's website (article + 2 reports for each one), in accordance with all the standards required by the journal and with the authors' approval for publication.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

No Charges

RHV does not have either article submission charges or  article processing charges (APCs).

Plagiarism Analysis

The RHV reviews all papers with anti-plagiarism software. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism is considered an unacceptable act. If plagiarism is detected, the publishers will reject the article immediately.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The RHV is edited by the Institute of Philosophy of the Universidad de Valparaíso (Chile). Its periodicity is biannual for original works in philosophy. The RHV adopts a neutral position on issues treated within its articlesand does not subscribe to any particular doctrine and is open to articles from different perspectives and with an international scope.The RHV promotes research and academic scientific discussion, irrespective of their nature, whether political, ethical, religious, gender-based, or other potentially or topically contentious subjects.

The RHV is a peer-reviewed journal and publishes in four languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Publication of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal aims to offer a high quality and trustworthy scientific research. Therefore, to achieve these aims, the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher, and the Institute of Philosophy (University of Valparaíso) have the responsibility to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article.

The RHV is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. Especially, we follow closely the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) international guidelines for good practices. According to this ethical code, our editors, reviewers and authors should assume the following responsibilities:

ETHICAL RESPONSABILITIES                      

Author’s responsibilities

  1. It is a responsibility of the authors to offer original works, not published, even partially, in another journal. Thus, to confirm/assert that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere.
  2. The author(s) are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes; and authors should provide a list of references, financial support.
  3. Authors should accurately describe any relevant data that relates to the results of their work.To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
  4. Authors commit to mentioning all the people who have collaborated and contributed in the research and its results, in such a way that they appear in the form of co-authors or collaborators.
  5. Authors are obliged to recognize and provide all the sources used, therefore they must use of the proper citation formulas. It is understood that the authors know perfectly well that plagiarism is not accepted.
  6. It is the obligation of the authors to indicate any conflict of interest or financial interest that could interfere with the results or interpretations of the research. Therefore, every author must commit to describing the source of funding for the project or research.
  7. It is the obligation of the authors to notify any major error noticed after sending the article; must be reported as quickly as possible so that it can be corrected.
  8. Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process.
  9. To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.

Reviewers' responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner.
  2. Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
  3. To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
  4. Reviewers should made objections or corrections in a neutral tone and duly reasoned and argued. Criticism of a personal nature is considered inappropriate. Judgments should be objective.
  5. Reviewers are obliged to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.

Editors' responsibilities

  1. Editors should act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
  2. Editors are obliged to handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
  3. The editorial committee will ensure that reviewers do not, under any circumstances, attempt to have the author cite irrelevant texts from journals and / or authors for the sole purpose of fraudulently increasing the prestige of such journals and / or authors.
  4. The editorial team will not disclose information about the authorship of the articles to reviewers or potential reviewers.
  5. Editors should always adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Universidad de Valparaíso where appropriate. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained. Editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
  6. Editors are obliged to treat plagiarism as an inadmissible act. If plagiarism is detected, editors must reject the article immediately.

PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Identification of unethical behaviour

  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include —but need not be limited to— examples as outlined above.
  • Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

  • An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
  • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

 Minor breaches

  • Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

 Serious breaches

  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or Society as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
  • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
  • Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

Indexes and Databases

RHV is indexed in the following databases: SCOPUS, Philosopher's Index, SciELO, ERIH-PLUS, Latindex Catálogo 2.0, DOAJ, REDIB, DIALNET.

Permission to Self-Archive and Digital Preservation

Authors are authorized to publish on the internet (for example, in institutional repositories or personal web sites) after publication, in no case prior to the review, layout or even in the phase of proof-reading; in the event of embargo, immediately after this has expired. This policy is designed to foster the reading and citation of contributions and to achieve greater and faster dissemination of the work published (see The Effect of Open Access)

The Journal can be accessed from two repositories: