Guidelines & FAQs
Submission Guidelines
Tolleration welcomes original manuscripts in educational philosophy, educational metaphysics, philosophy of curriculum, contemplative and transpersonal education, epistemological inquiry, and related areas. Work should demonstrate genuine engagement with a tradition or lineage of thought and should advance — rather than merely survey — that tradition. For a full account of the journal's scope and the range of topics it publishes, see the Scope section of About the Journal.
Length. Tolleration publishes three article formats. Standard articles are between 5,000 and 10,000 words inclusive of footnotes and references. Short philosophical works are between 1,500 and 3,500 words — focused, self-contained arguments that do not require the full apparatus of a longer article. Book reviews are typically between 800 and 2,000 words; extended critical essays on major works may be longer by arrangement with the editorial team. Across all formats, the editorial preference is for concise, technically precise language: density earns its length, and length does not substitute for density.
Aporiai submissions are formally distinct from all of the above. An aporia (aporiai in the Greek plural, ἀπορίαι) — rendered in plain English as an open idea — is a genuine impasse: a question or idea the field requires but cannot yet answer from within its existing resources. These are not underdeveloped articles or preliminary notes; they are formally complete precisely because the impasse is what they offer. An aporia may be as brief as a single sentence or as long as the question genuinely demands. Length is not a criterion; precision is. Where a preprint or full manuscript responds to or develops from an aporia published in this section, it must declare that origin explicitly at the outset — naming the aporia being addressed and the direction the response takes.
Format. Manuscripts may be submitted in any of the following formats: Word (.docx), OpenDocument Text (.odt), Rich Text Format (.rtf), or PDF. A formatted manuscript template is available for download: Tolleration Manuscript Template (.odt). The preferred typeface is Garamond or a comparable humanist serif at 12 points, with 1.5 line spacing and standard margins (2.5 cm or 1 inch). For submissions under blind review, authors should remove all identifying information from the document — including name, institutional affiliation, acknowledgements, and self-referential citations — and clear identifying metadata from file properties. Submissions accompanied by a preprint, or otherwise non-blind by arrangement, are not subject to this requirement.
Citation style. Tolleration accepts manuscripts formatted in Chicago (author-date or notes-bibliography), APA 7th edition, or MLA 9th edition. Internal consistency is required. House style will be applied uniformly at the copy-editing stage and authors will be consulted on any substantive changes.
Abstract. Include an abstract of 150–200 words and up to six keywords. The abstract is a scholarly instrument: it should be as technically precise and conceptually concentrated as the manuscript requires. It is not expected to be accessible to a general reader, and authors should not dilute its argument in pursuit of breadth.
International Summary. In addition to the abstract, authors are asked to submit an International Summary of 800–1,200 words written in non-technical English prose. The International Summary is distinct from the abstract in both register and purpose: where the abstract may assume paradigmatic fluency and disciplinary formation, the Summary must not. It should convey the essential question, argument, and significance of the work to any educated reader — regardless of their familiarity with the specific tradition or framework engaged. This requirement reflects Tolleration's conviction that genuine openness in scholarly communication is not a matter of removing rigour, but of ensuring that rigour does not become a barrier to cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary dialogue. The Summary may be submitted as part of the manuscript file or as a separate document.
Language. Manuscripts are accepted in English. Tolleration is committed to international scholarship and recognises that many contributors work in English as a second or third language; the editorial team will distinguish linguistic matters from argumentative ones in all reviews, and a manuscript will not be penalised for imperfect English where the argument is philosophically sound. Submission in French is a longer-term aspiration as the editorial team and advisory network develop the necessary capacity; authors wishing to submit in French are encouraged to contact the editorial team to discuss feasibility before submitting.
Review Criteria
Manuscripts submitted to Tolleration are evaluated on the following grounds:
- Paradigmatic formation. Does the author demonstrate genuine inhabitation of a tradition, method, or lineage — rather than surface familiarity?
- Envelopmental depth. Does the work move through prior positions toward something not previously visible, rather than merely cataloguing existing views?
- Argumentative integrity. Are the claims coherent, well-supported, and responsive to the strongest available objections?
- Contextual situatedness. Does the work locate itself — historically, philosophically, and institutionally — without false universalism (sub specie æternitatis)? And does it, where relevant, descend from metaphysical or theoretical inquiry into the contextual practice of education: the classroom, teacher education, curriculum formation, and the lived encounter between teacher and student?
- Contribution. Does the manuscript advance the field in a manner that could not be derived from existing literature? This includes not only theoretical innovation but genuine applicability: where the inquiry bears on practice, that bearing should be traceable.
Manuscripts are not penalised for taking unconventional positions, engaging with non-Western or non-secular traditions, or operating outside the dominant paradigms of Anglophone educational research. Tolleration exists precisely to create space for such inquiry.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Tolleration peer-reviewed?
Yes. All manuscripts undergo substantive editorial review followed by external peer review. Tolleration practices parametric open peer review — a form of review in which the conditions of the review process are declared publicly and may include open reviewer identity, open review reports, and structured author-reviewer dialogue. Depending on the submission type and author preference, review may be conducted as single-blind, double-blind, or fully open. The specific parametres in effect for each article type are disclosed on the submission page.
Is there a fee to submit or publish?
No. There are no submission fees, article processing charges, or any other publication costs for authors. Tolleration is fully open access, funded through the patrons of wiseOak Akadēmeía and the voluntary labour of its editorial community. All published work is immediately free to read and reuse under CC BY 4.0.
Can I submit a paper I have already posted as a preprint?
Yes. Tolleration welcomes submissions that have been posted to preprint servers, including Tolleration's own Preprint server, as well as PhilArchive, EdArXiv, SSRN, and institutional repositories. Please disclose the preprint in your cover letter and provide the URL. Preprints are not considered prior publication and will not disqualify your submission.
How long does the review process take?
We aim to provide an initial editorial decision within four weeks of submission. External review, where required, typically takes eight to twelve weeks. We are committed to timely review and will communicate with authors if significant delays arise. The portal is currently offline; all correspondence is handled by email at [at] ac.noitarellot
Can I submit in a language other than English?
Manuscripts are accepted in English. French is a longer-term aspiration as editorial capacity develops; authors wishing to submit in French are encouraged to contact the editorial team to discuss feasibility before submitting. The editorial team is committed to distinguishing linguistic matters from argumentative ones in all reviews.
What does "envelopmental scope" mean as a review parametre?
Envelopmental scope refers to the degree to which a submitted work is evaluated not only within its own disciplinary framework but in relation to the broader traditions it implicitly draws upon or departs from. A manuscript on curriculum theory, for instance, may be reviewed with attention to its metaphysical presuppositions, its implicit theory of the subject, or its relation to secular and sacred traditions of formation. This is not a demand for encyclopedic coverage, but for honest situatedness within a lineage.
What does the name "Tolleration" mean, and what is tollere?
Tolleration is spelled with a double ll and pronounced TOLL-er-AY-shun (/ˌtoʊl.əˈreɪ.ʃən/) — distinct from the familiar English word toleration both in sound and meaning. The double ll marks a deliberate etymological shift toward the Latin tollere: to lift, to carry, to sublate. In German philosophical tradition, the same movement is captured in Hegel's Aufheben — simultaneously to negate, to preserve, and to elevate. Tolleration as a journal is committed to this dialectical movement: not the mere tolerance of difference, but its active envelopment and carrying-forward.
Envelopment, in this sense, is the philosophical process by which prior positions are not simply discarded but taken up, transformed, and surpassed. From secular to sacred, from local to universal, from the particular classroom to the metaphysical horizon — this is the direction of movement the journal invites.
Do you accept book reviews?
Yes. Book reviews of 800–1,500 words are welcome, particularly of works in educational philosophy, philosophy of education, and adjacent fields. Reviews should situate the book within its tradition, assess its argument, and indicate its significance for readers of Tolleration. Unsolicited reviews are accepted; contact the Book Review Editor, Michael Fitze, at [at] ac.noitarellot to discuss a proposed review.
I am a graduate student. Can I submit?
Absolutely. Tolleration does not discriminate by career stage. Graduate researchers are encouraged to submit, and the submission form includes a role field that allows you to identify yourself as a Masters or Doctoral researcher. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual merits. The editorial team is committed to constructive feedback for all authors, including those at early stages of scholarly formation.
What prevents a reviewer from exploiting the Dialogical Contributor authorship model?
This is a legitimate concern and one the editorial team takes seriously. The Dialogical Contributor (DC) role exists to recognise genuine intellectual co-formation — the kind of substantive exchange that materially reshapes an argument — not to provide reviewers with a mechanism for extracting co-authorship credit in exchange for a favourable review.
The process is structured to protect author autonomy at every stage. Following review, each reviewer independently and anonymously proposes a direction of dialogical engagement — Reviewer A may offer Direction A, Reviewer B may offer Direction B, or either may offer a combined Direction AB involving both reviewers. These proposals are transmitted to the author before any reviewer identity is disclosed. The author selects the direction they wish to pursue, or declines all proposals, and only then are identities revealed to the extent required for the chosen collaboration.
The Dialogical Contributor must complete their contribution within three months of acceptance. If no contribution is received within that period, the original author proceeds with revisions independently and the manuscript is published under their name alone.
This structure is a direct response to the pathologies of conventional peer review — in particular Pathology I (the anonymity shield), Pathology II (the conscription of thinkers), and Pathology IX, among others — as identified in Tolleration's founding critique of the publication machine. The DC model does not eliminate the power asymmetry between reviewer and author; it makes that asymmetry visible, names it, and holds it accountable.