Tolleration — spelled with a double ll, pronounced TOLL-er-AY-shun (/ˌtoʊl.əˈreɪ.ʃən/) — is an open peer review (OPR) journal with parametric freedom: its review process is a declared set of adjustable positions across six dimensions — identity disclosure, preprints, review verdicts, metrics, dialogue, and envelopmental scope.
The purpose of the name is to philosophically reinvigorate the idea of toleration. Ordinary toleration means respectful coexistence — holding diverse views without conflict. Tolleration goes further, recovering the Latin tollere (to lift, to carry upward) and the English sublation, which Hegel rendered as Aufheben: to preserve what is essential in a prior position, to acknowledge that position's limits, and to elevate the prior position into a richer understanding. The double ll marks that expansion — from coexistence to active elevation.
Tolleration is humanistic not only in subject matter but in how the journal operates. Reviewers declare the intellectual tradition they stand in, meet as a council after reviewing independently, and issue a single collective verdict. The full exchange is published as part of the scholarly record.
Each describes what the publication machine does to educational philosophy. Each generated a structural decision in how this journal operates.
Knowledge production is holarchical; the published paper presents it as solitary.
∴ Named contributorship in prose, before submission.
Anonymous review eliminates relational accountability. The reviewer becomes a gatekeeper with no intellectual responsibility for the encounter.
∴ Blind verdict, named dialogue. Anonymity ends at mutual covenant.
In the humanities there is always something to elevate. The binary decision is machine logic applied to philosophical inquiry.
∴ Verdict carries attribution offer: major/minor revisions, dismissal, or rejection by council.
A positivist reviewer evaluating perennialist metaphysics is structurally incapable of the encounter the work requires.
∴ Paradigm-aware matching. Cross-paradigm review requires written editorial justification.
Citation counts and impact factors are treated as proxies for depth. A paper with 200 references is assumed more rigorous than one with 40. Great span is mistaken for great depth.
∴ Tolleration participates in standard metrics — and adds an editorial standard they cannot capture: what interpretive principle does this work introduce that could not be seen before?
Scholarly conversation proceeds within paradigms that cannot see their own limits.
∴ Ground declaration required before the abstract.
The conscription of thinkers: scholars cite whoever agrees with them, regardless of whether the encounter with that thinker produced anything new. The field becomes a hall of mirrors — every citation reflecting the scholar's own position back at them, philosophically laundered through a canonical name.
∴ Lineage declaration required. A submission that cannot say what it genuinely extends is returned with one editorial question before review begins.
Secular-rational discourse poses as the neutral container of all inquiry. One paradigm has mistaken its comportment for a view from nowhere.
∴ Envelopmental container, not secular default.
Anonymity protects the lazy verdict. Rejection becomes the path of least resistance — requiring the least from the reviewer.
∴ Rejection requires written consensus from the full reviewer council, with each reviewer's reasoning stated.
Standard journals act as gatekeepers not just of quality but of access: a manuscript cannot be read by anyone until the journal permits it. This conflates two separate functions — making work available (which costs nothing today) and certifying it (which is what peer review actually does). The result is that good work sits invisible for months or years while awaiting a verdict.
∴ Tolleration separates the two functions. Work is posted publicly as an anonymous preprint at submission. The review process certifies it — it does not unlock it.