Publication Preparation Guide

English spelling: US. German translation, based on version 1.0.

Purpose and limits

This guide supports authors preparing philosophical work about THE DOT. Its question is how to make the contribution assessable and the submission traceable without overstating its evidence or status. The approach combines project integrity safeguards with scoped official guidance. It is not a manuscript assessment, legal advice, journal endorsement, or evidence that THE DOT is a physical entity. Game fiction and mechanics are outside the evidence base.

Status of guidance: Project safeguards below apply to this repository. Journal, publisher, funder, and institutional requirements apply only when relevant to the actual submission. Tools are optional unless a venue requires them. Sources were consulted on 19 October 2026; check live instructions again immediately before submission. No target venue has been selected or assessed here.

1. Define the contribution before choosing a format

Write down the genre, research question, central thesis, intended audience, contribution relative to existing work, argument or method, evidence base, and explicit exclusions. Use the document-type guide to name the output, not to claim validity.

For a philosophical article, a useful working structure is:

1. State a focused question and why it matters.
2. Define the central terms and reconstruct relevant existing positions fairly.
3. State premises and argue for them; make inferential steps inspectable.
4. Explain what follows, what does not follow, and what would undermine the argument.
5. Address the strongest objections and plausible alternatives.
6. Conclude with the actual contribution, limitations, and open questions.

This is a project recommendation, not a universal journal template. Philosophical argument does not automatically require experiments, statistical analysis, preregistration, or IMRAD. EQUATOR is a health-research reporting resource; use a design-specific guideline only when the work and venue call for it. If empirical work is added, reassess methods, evidence, reporting, privacy, and ethics before collecting data. [1, 2, 13]

For THE DOT: Label definitions, deductions, philosophical arguments, empirical findings, model assumptions, personal experience, hypotheses, speculation, and metaphor separately. A stipulated definition or coherent model does not establish physical existence.

2. Select a venue before final formatting or public deposit

• Read the venue's aims, accepted article types, and recent relevant papers. Check that it accepts the language and type of philosophical contribution you offer.
• Record the official instructions URL and date checked: word limits (including or excluding notes/references), abstract and keyword limits, citation style, file formats, supplements, review model, and submission declarations.
• Check publisher identity, editor affiliations, review process, archiving, rights, fees, currency, and waiver conditions using Think. Check. Submit. Verify claimed memberships or indexing directly. Neither a fee nor the absence of a fee proves quality; a DOI or indexing claim is not peer review. [3]
• Check preprint, prior-publication, simultaneous-submission, translation, and AI-use policies before posting or submitting. Do not assume a translation is a new original publication. [6, 7]

For example, the official instructions for Philosophy currently specify triple-blind review, a maximum of 10,000 words, and a preference for shorter, accessible contributions. This is an example of venue-specific instructions, not a recommendation that this journal fits THE DOT, and not a limit for other journals. [2]

3. Build an inspectable source and argument record

• Use Zotero or an equivalent reference manager to organize references and notes. Verify imported metadata against the source; software does not establish that a quotation or argument is supported. [8]
• Retain the exact edition, stable identifier or URL, and relevant page, section, or other locator for each attributed claim. Distinguish direct reading from a secondary report.
• Check the publisher's record for corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern where available. Assess whether these affect the claim; the absence of a warning is not proof of reliability.
• Keep a claim-to-source or claim-to-argument record in working notes. Include serious opposing work, not just supporting citations. Do not present a selective philosophical discussion as a systematic review without a defensible systematic method.
• Define manuscript-specific terminology; the document-type glossary is not a substantive glossary of THE DOT.

These are project safeguards. Do not upload confidential manuscripts, personal data, or restricted source material to external reference, AI, or checking services without authorization.

4. Prepare authorship, disclosures, and the review copy

• Agree on authorship, author order, contributions, corresponding-author responsibilities, and approval of the exact submitted version. Use truthful affiliation and qualification information; do not imply institutional endorsement. Follow the actual venue's authorship criteria. [5]
• Record funding and relevant financial and nonfinancial interests, permissions, and any applicable ethics or data/code statements. If there is no empirical dataset, explain that where requested rather than inventing data or an approval.
• Keep an AI-use log: tool/provider, version if available, date, task, affected sections or outputs, and human verification. Check whether the venue permits the use, how it distinguishes translation or copyediting from content generation, and where disclosure belongs. AI is not an author; humans remain responsible for claims, references, originality, and corrections. ICMJE explicitly states this for medical publishing; it is an integrity reference here, not a substitute for a philosophy venue's policy. [6]
• For anonymous review, follow the venue's exact instructions. Inspect names, affiliations, acknowledgments, identifying funding or disclosure text, self-citations, repository links, supplements, PDF/Word properties, comments, tracked changes, and filenames. Supply necessary identifying declarations separately as instructed; do not omit them from the submission altogether. Do not remove necessary citations indiscriminately. Anonymization reduces disclosure risk; it cannot guarantee that reviewers will not recognize a public preprint or distinctive project. [4]

5. Treat translations, preprints, and publication status explicitly

• Name a source version for each translation using Original_language, Translation_of, and Source_version. Compare claims, uncertainty, quotations, locators, numbers, and symbols, not just wording.
• Disclose related manuscripts, translations, and earlier public versions as required. Check permissions and editorial approval for secondary publication. Do not submit the same work simultaneously to multiple journals unless all relevant venues explicitly permit it. ICMJE's overlapping-publication policy illustrates these issues, including different-language submissions; the chosen venue determines its applicable rules. [7]
• PhilArchive is a philosophy-specific open-access archive integrated with PhilPapers; Zenodo offers repository records with versioning. They are possible dissemination routes, not substitutes for journal review or automatic endorsements. Check eligibility, deposit rights, anonymity implications, and the venue's preprint policy before upload. [10, 11]
• Distinguish draft, preprint, submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript, and version of record. State the actual review status. A repository DOI identifies an output; it does not certify truth, originality, or peer review.
• An ORCID iD is a free persistent researcher identifier, useful for attribution and sometimes required by journals. It is not a qualification or quality seal. [9]

6. Check rights, preserve the version, and audit before release

• Confirm rights to quotations, figures, photographs, and other third-party material. Do not apply an open license to rights you do not control. Check the publisher agreement and any funder obligations; do not assume one Creative Commons license fits every output. CC licensing can have lasting consequences; seek qualified advice when rights are unclear. [3, 12]
• Preserve the exact dated submission/release files, references, translation source version, disclosure record, and completed audit. Use version-specific repository identifiers where available; link later published versions without mislabeling an earlier manuscript. Zenodo documents separate, linked records for new versions. [11]
• Inspect the exported PDF or other deliverable, not only the Markdown: readable/selectable text, logical headings, figure descriptions, contrast, equations, references, and functioning links.
• Complete the publication audit checklist. Record findings and evidence in the root audit directory. Unresolved Blocker or Major findings, or unverified release-critical requirements, prevent a pass. An internal audit is not peer review.

Minimal practical toolkit: A reference manager (for example Zotero), the chosen venue's live instructions, an exact version record, an AI-use/disclosure log where relevant, and the completed audit. ORCID and an authorized repository deposit are useful additions, not universal prerequisites. No paid service is inherently required by this guide.

Sources and their scope

The sources support the specific descriptions attributed to them; they do not establish the truth of THE DOT or endorse every project recommendation above.

1. DFG: Code of Conduct - research-integrity framework; formal obligations depend on institutional/funding applicability.
2. Cambridge: Philosophy author instructions - one philosophy journal's scope, length, accessibility, and review model.
3. Think. Check. Submit.: Journals checklist - assessing journal/publisher transparency, fees, review, rights, and archiving; not certification.
4. Cambridge: Anonymising your manuscript - publisher guidance for anonymous review; journal instructions govern the exact submission.
5. Cambridge: Authorship and contributorship - publisher authorship principles and corresponding-author responsibilities.
6. ICMJE: Authors and contributors, including AI-assisted technology - medical-journal authorship, human responsibility, and AI disclosure guidance.
7. ICMJE: Overlapping publications - medical-journal policies on duplicate submissions, preprints, and secondary publication.
8. Zotero: Quick start guide - reference-management capabilities, not source verification.
9. ORCID: What is ORCID? - free persistent identifiers and researcher-controlled records.
10. PhilArchive - philosophy archive and its integration with PhilPapers; individual eligibility and deposit terms still need checking.
11. Zenodo: Manage versions - linked versions and their identifiers, not publication review.
12. Creative Commons: FAQ - general licensing information; not legal advice.
13. EQUATOR: About us - explicitly health-research reporting scope.