All submissions are reviewed first by the Editorial Board Coordinator who decides (without being told the author's identity) whether to pass it for further review to an Executive Editor (one of our Board of Executive Editors). She or he then decides (without being told the author's identity) whether to send it for peer review. Papers not making it past these two stages are returned with very little, if any, editorial comment, but relatively quickly: within four weeks of initial submission.

For papers going to peer review, the Executive Editor learns the author's identity and affiliation, to assist her or him in the selection of two independent, anonymous expert referees (who will not be told the author's identity).

After receiving the referees' reports, the Executive Editor decides on one of the following: 

• Recommend to the Board that the submission be accepted for publication. All Executive Editors vote on this recommendation, without (except for the proposing Editor) being told the author's identity.
• Reject the submission.
• Invite a resubmission in light of the referees' comments. (Resubmissions re-enter the process at the stage at which referees are solicited. We seek to have resubmissions refereed by the same people who refereed the original.)

Appeals

To appeal an editorial decision, please contact the Editorial Board Coordinator (editorial.board.coordinator@canadianjournalofphilosophy.com) and specify the reason for your appeal. 

Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editorial Board Coordinator and/or an Editor who did not review the manuscript. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the CAN Editorial Board Coordinator and Executive Editors.