- » Focus and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
Focus and Scope
Materialism, in one form or another, is still widely accepted as the overarching framework for discussing issues not only in science but also in the humanities. AntiMatters is dedicated to illuminating these issues from nonmaterialistic perspectives.
Materialism is by nature pluralistic. It assigns ultimate reality to a multitude (particles, spacetime points, monads, actual occasions, bits, q-bits, etc.). It models reality “from the bottom up.” Its principal explanatory concepts are composition and interaction, to which modern field theories have added the concept of instantiation (usually of physical properties by spacetime points). AntiMatters encourages the exploration of ontologies that are essentially monistic, not because they aim to reduce reality to a single category such as matter or mind, but because they assign ultimate reality to an entity or principle that is intrinsically one. Such ontologies model reality “from the top down,” using novel explanatory concepts such as differentiation, manifestation, emanation, or emergence (and probably others that nobody has thought of yet).
AntiMatters is for those who are uncomfortable with (or unconvinced of) materialism, or who favor a non-materialistic world view. Such persons are oftentimes unaware of how much of what is claimed to have been scientifically established is actually spurious. For their benefit, the Journal aims to critically examine the alleged scientific evidence for materialism. While authors are expected to respect and take account of all relevant empirical data, they should bear in mind that empirical data are inevitably theory-laden and paradigm-dependent, and that theories and paradigms, being to a considerable extent social constructions, are relative.
Science operates within an interpretative framework that formulates questions and interprets answers. This framework is itself not testable. AntiMatters wants to serve as a platform for the comparative study of alternative interpretative frameworks. The Journal emphasizes the following criteria for the evaluation of such frameworks:
- Consistency with all empirical data, not only the quantifiable ones but also those obtained through phenomenological methods, altered states of consciousness, and mystical or spiritual experience.
- An appropriate ontological status for what we value most, such as happiness, self-fulfillment, excellence — the Platonic trinity of beauty, good, and truth.
The Journal wants to set high intellectual standards, without sacrificing substance. Style is important, but more so is content. Positive thinking is as essential as clarity of exposition. Deconstruction for its own sake qualifies as little as religious dogma.
It is not the (primary) aim of AntiMatters to “convert” die-hard materialists. Instead, the Journal offers non-materialists the opportunity of a stimulating exchange of views. It invites comments on articles accepted for publication and encourages comments on published articles. Authors will of course be allowed to respond to comments.
Discussions of “anomalies,” which are neglected or ignored by mainstream science, also fall within the scope of the Journal.
Section Policies
Editorial
 Open Submissions |
 Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
More Articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Book reviews
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Book excerpts
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Comments and responses
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Everything else
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
We do not blind submissions for review. Instead we expect referees to judge submissions by their intrinsic merits. Articles are typically (but not necessarily) reviewed by two referees, who will make recommendations based on the following criteria. * Is the paper in accord with the Journal's Focus and Scope? * Are the descriptions of experimental/observational data correct and sufficiently referenced? Are the interpretations of experimental/observational data consistent? * Does the paper discuss the merits/demerits of alternatives to the theory or interpretation put forward? * Is the paper well-organized, easily readable, and accessible to a multidisciplinary audience? * Is it of interest to a multidisciplinary audience? Is it challenging, thought-provoking, and original? Or is it boring, trite, or trivial? * Are the grammar and syntax correct? Is the author too verbose or too terse and cryptic? Is the paper too colloquial or too formal in style? * Does the abstract adequately describe the paper? Does the introduction adequately explain the purpose of the paper, its methodology, and what the author has accomplished? Does it clearly state the issues addressed by the paper? * If the paper offers an original and interesting idea or viewpoint or an original and interesting combination of published ideas, are these badly expressed? If so, the referee should (i) encourage the author to rewrite the paper and (ii) suggest changes. * In case of a positive recommendation, the referee must provide a list of necessary changes and should suggest further improvements. If the recommendation is negative, but the referee thinks the paper can be salvaged, similar lists should be provided. On the other hand, referees should not waste time and effort on a detailed critique of a badly flawed paper.
Publication Frequency
Quarterly: February 21st/29th, April 24th, August 15th, November 24th.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.