Guidelines

1.       Entelekya Logico-Metaphysical Review publishes studies on the Classical Aristotelian Logic, Metaphysics and Rational Psychology and Theology; in addition, other classical, modern and contemporary studies related to the Aristotelian tradition. Submissions are accepted in English but submissions in other languages are decided by Editorial Board.

2.       Book reviews sent to Entelekya are expected appropriate to the publication policies of the journal. Book reviews written in other languages except for English never be accepted. As to translations, they can be published when related to Aristotelianism.

3.       All papers must contain an abstract of 150 words and at least 5 keywords in English. When the submission language is different, it should include abstract and keywords both in English and in that language.

4.       Papers should not exceed 5000 words, with a double space interlining, with margins, left 4.5, up 4,5, down 3,5 and right 4,5 cm. In papers, it should be made use of Times New Roman 11 points. Pictures or graphics in the papers should be sent separately as png or jpg file, maximum 10x20 cm in size.

5.       Annotation and reference system of the journal has been described the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition. Henceforth, in manuscripts to send to the journal, it will be used.  

Style Sheet

A. BOOK OR A PART OF BOOK

One Author

1 Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 50.

2 Ryle, The Concept of Mind, 51.

Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

Two or More Authors

1 Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), I, 23.

2 Whitehead and Russell, Principia Mathematica, I, 30.

Whitehead, Alfred North and Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910.

Editor, Translator, or Compiler in Addition to Author

1 Alfarabi, Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, trans. Muhsin Mahdi (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), 45.

2 Alfarabi, Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, 49.

3 Aristotle, Metaphysica, trans. W. David Ross, The Works of Aristotle, vol. VIII, ed. W. David Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908-52), A.1, 980a21.

4 Aristotle, Metaphysica, A.1, 980b17.

5 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Anthony D. Woozley (New York: Meridian Book, 1974), 123.

6 Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 129.

Alfarabi. Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Trans. Muhsin Mahdi. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

Aristotle. Metaphysica. Trans. W. David Ross. The Works of Aristotle, vol. VIII. Ed. W. David Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908-52.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Anthony D. Woozley. New York: Meridian Book, 1974.

Chapter or Other Part of a Book

1 Richard Sorabji, “The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle,” Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, ed. Richard Sorabji (New York: Cornell University Press, 1990), 23.

2 Sorabji, “The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle,” 30.

Sorabji, Richard. “The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.” Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. Ed. Richard Sorabji. New York: Cornell University Press, 1990: 1-30.

Preface, Foreword, Introduction, or Similar Part of a Book

1 George F. Hourani, “Introduction,” Averroes, On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy, trans. and ed. George F. Hourani (London: Luzac and Company, 1976), 7.

2 Hourani, “Introduction,” 8.

Hourani, George F. “Introduction.” Averroes, On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy. Trans. and ed. George F. Hourani. London: Luzac and Company, 1976: 2-8.

B. JOURNAL ARTICLE

Article in a Print or Online  Journal

1 Amos Bertolacci, “On the Arabic Translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15 (2005), 250.

2 Bertolacci, “On the Arabic Translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” 253.

Bertolacci, Amos. “On the Arabic Translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15 (2005): 241-75.

Article in a Newspaper or Popular Magazine

1 Daniel Mendelsohn, “But Enough about Me,” The New Yorker (25 January 2010).

2 Mendelsohn, “But Enough About Me.”

Mendelsohn, Daniel. “But Enough About Me.” The New Yorker, 25 January 2010.

C. OTHER FORMS

Book Review

1 Mark McEvoy, “Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian,” Metaphilosophy 39 (2008), 149.

2 McEvoy, “Fear of Knowledge,” 149.

McEvoy, Mark. “Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian.” Metaphilosophy 39 (2008): 144-150.

Thesis or Dissertation

1 Roger Ariew, Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony, PhD Dissertation (Illinois: University of Illinois, 1976), 15.

2 Ariew, Ockham’s Razor, 21.

Ariew, Roger. Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony. PhD Dissertation. Illinois: University of Illinois, 1976.

Presentation at a Meeting or Conference

1 Alix Cohen, “Kant on the Ethics of Belief,” The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (London: University of London, June 2, 2014).

2 Cohen, “Kant on the Ethics of Belief.”

Cohen, Alix. “Kant on the Ethics of Belief.” The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. London: University of London, June 2, 2014.

Film

1 Joel Silver, The Matrix [Film], dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski (USA and Australia: Warner Bros. Pictures and Roadshow Entertainment, March 1999).

2 Silver, The Matrix.

Silver, Joel. The Matrix. Film. Dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski. USA and Australia: Warner Bros. Pictures and Roadshow Entertainment, March 1999.

Website

1 “Aristotle,” Wikipedia, accessed May 10, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle.

2 “Aristotle,” Wikipedia.

Wikipedia. “Aristotle.” Accessed May 10, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle.

In the process of publishing, all involved parties (authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers) must agree on the standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

1. Duties of the Editor-in-Chief

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, citizenship, or political views.

Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as may then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making decisions.

2. Duties of Peer Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts for which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

3. Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

The authors reporting results of original work should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship of a Manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the work, they should be named in an Acknowledgments section.

The Corresponding Author

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Human or Animal Subjects

Any work involving human or animal subjects should indicate whether the procedures followed were by the ethical standards of the relevant institutional committee(s).

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Completion of Revision Process

After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, i.e. after referee-recommended revisions have been completed, the author will not be permitted to make changes that constitute departures from the manuscript that was accepted by the editor. Before publication, galley proofs are always sent to authors for corrections. The authors are responsible for proofreading and checking the entire galley proof within XX days. Failure to return the proof in XX days may delay publication. Mistakes or omissions that occur due to some negligence on the part of the journal during final printing will be rectified in an erratum in a later issue. This does not include errors left uncorrected by the author in the galley proof.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate corrigendum.

4. Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a corrigendum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the work in question.