Blind reviewing except when reviewer wants to be known to author.

The 1985 volume also contained 27 shorter book reviews of one to eight pages.

Citable documents include: articles, reviews and conference papers"

It expresses the average number of weighted citations received in the selected year by the documents published in the journal in the three previous years">

Philosophical problems and philosophical writing require careful and extended reflection.

Another quarter fell within epistemology or philosophical psychology.

Most common reason for rejection is that paper doesn't advance the discussion beyond the level reached in or other journals.Book review policy is unusual: all reviews sent to the author for inspection; author's response sent, unedited, to the reviewer.

Authors' names not concealed from reviewers, but reviewers' names always concealed from authors.

As an antidote to dogmatism and parochialism, we foster a deliberate pluralism and encourage boundary violations at the borders of philosophical canon.

Books in ethics are most frequently reviewed.

Most of that issue's ten contributors had backgrounds in philosophy, and as in most other issues, most articles used an analytical philosophical approach.

Major revisions requested very seldom.

The idea that the philosophy of film should model itself upon ascientific model has been contested from a variety of points ofview. Some philosophers, relying on the writings of pragmatists likeWilliam James, have questioned the idea that natural science providesa useful way to think about what philosophers are doing in theirreflections on film. Here, there is an emphasis on the particularityof films as works of art in contrast the to the urge to move to ageneral theory of film. Others, making use of later Wittgenstein aswell as the tradition of hermeneutics, also question such a naturalscientific orientation for philosophic reflections on film. This campsees the study of film as a humanistic discipline that ismisunderstood when it is assimilated to a natural science.

You have to go on to offer your own philosophical contribution, too.

Münsterberg was writing during the silent era. The developmentof the simultaneous sound track—the“talkie”—changed film forever. It is not surprisingthat this important innovation spawned interesting theoreticalreflections.

Blind reviewing at author's request ("but may delay a decision").

For Arnheim, the silent film had achieved artistic status by focusingon its ability to present moving bodies. Indeed, for him, the artisticaspect of cinema consisted in its ability to present abstractions, anability completely lost when films began to employ simultaneoussoundtracks. Writing near the dawn of the talkie, Arnheim could onlysee what we now recognize as a natural development of the artform as adecline from a previously attained height.

One in eight accepted papers are accepted subject to major revisions.

André Bazin, though not a professional philosopher or even anacademic, countered Arnheim's assessment in a series of articles thatstill exert an important influence on the field. (Bazin 1967;1971) For Bazin, the important dichotomy is not that between the soundand the silent film but rather between films that focus on the imageand those that emphasize reality. Although editing had emerged formany such as Sergei Eisenstein as the distinctive aspect of film,Bazin returns to the silent era to demonstrate the presence of analternative means of achieving film art, namely an interest inallowing the camera to reveal the actual nature of the world. Relyingon a conception of film as having a realist character because of itsbasis in photography, Bazin argues that the future of cinema as anartform depends on its development of this capacity to present theworld to us “frozen in time.”