Skip to Content

Editor Interview: The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition

Q: Describe what you publish in 25 characters or less.

A: Plato and Platonism

Q: What other current publications (or publishers) do you admire most?

A: Phronesis, Ancient Philosophy, Dionysius

Q: What sets your publication apart from others that publish similar material?

A: Our focus is on the evolution of Platonism, and so we cover a broad area of topics from the period leading up to Plato until the present day, from various viewpoints, and from countries around the world.

Q: What is the best advice you can give people who are considering submitting work to your publication?

A: Do your research. One of the major reasons that articles are rejected or require re-writing is that the authors have not included essential secondary sources.
Argue coherently. You may have a great idea, but you must develop the argument so that it is clear to the reader.
Keep within the 10,000-word limit.
Proof-read your work carefully. Too many typos or grammatical errors tend to upset referees.
If you are worried about something in your paper (the topic, an idea that might sound outré, a section that you worry may not be appropriate or completely relevant), ask the editor.

Q: Describe the ideal submission.

A: The ideal is a clear and consistent argument that makes use of appropriate primary and secondary sources, flows naturally, clearly makes each of its points, and shows that the author has accomplished the background work to support his/her claims.

Q: What do submitters most often get wrong about your submissions process?

A: The two main problems are not citing primary texts in the original languages and not making proper use of secondary sources.

Q: How much do you want to know about the person submitting to you?

A: Who you are is less important than what your write.

Q: What additional evaluations, if any, does a piece go through before it is accepted?

A: Every paper is double-blind peer-reviewed. If the referees ask for major revisions, then it is very possible that the revised paper will undergo one more peer review.

Q: What is a day in the life of an editor like for you?

A: An editor's lot may not be an unhappy one, but it is not glamorous either. The editor reads the submitted papers, decides if they should be reviewed, searches for referees (not being too proud to beg, if necessary), nudges referees who are taking too long to complete their assignments, reads the referee reports and decides whether to accept the paper or not (which can be difficult when referees disagree), explains to the authors of rejected papers what the problems were, communicates with the authors about the necessary revisions, sees the accepted papers through the final stages of editing, works with the publishers to get the papers into appropriate style, and proof-reads the final product.

Q: How important do you feel it is for publishers to embrace modern technologies?

A: Modern technologies are essential. Brill uses electronic submissions, referees submit their reports online, communication with the authors is done online, and getting the journal ready for publication is accomplished online. The process is usually smooth, and the results are excellent.

Q: How much do you edit an accepted piece prior to publication?

A: Before publication, the papers are read by their authors, the editorial staff, and the editor-in-chief. At that point, changes are mainly for spelling, grammar, or house style.

Q: Do you nominate work you've published for any national or international awards?

A: No.