The Reasoner
The Reasoner is a bimonthly digest highlighting exciting new research on reasoning, inference and method broadly construed.
Supported by Centre for Reasoning of the University of Kent until 2024, from 2024 the journal is published by the University of Milan on the Riviste Unimi platform.
Issues from 2007 to 2024 have been retrieved on the Riviste Unimi Platform by the University of Milan. For each issue, the table of contents has been retrieved and the full-text is avalaible below the full issue.
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. Our Open Access Policy is based on rules of Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
Creative Commons License
All contents are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Share alike 4.0 International License.
Preprint and postprint version of the articles can be archived anywhere under the same license.
Article Processing and Submission Charge
You can publish free of charge: no payments are required from the authors, as this journal doesn’t have article submission charges nor article processing charges (APCs).
Archiving
Long term preservation is ensured by the PKP PN (Preservation Network) plugin, in order to preserve digital contents through LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) project.
Plagiarism
Editors have a duty to act promptly in case of errors and misconducts, both proven and alleged. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. In case such as errors in articles or in the publication process, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, appropriate steps will be taken, following the recommendations, guidelines and flowcharts from COPE (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines). Corrections will happen with due prominence, including the publication of an erratum (errors from the publication process), corrigendum (errors from the Author(s)) or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work. Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
Acceptable use of AI-powered tools
The Reasoner acknowledges the importance of artificial intelligence innovations understanding the challenges and opportunities they entail.
Any use of the published texts for the purpose of training generative artificial intelligence systems is strictly prohibited, as is the use of automated means of data scraping.
Authors who have used artificial intelligence tools in the editing of a manuscript, in the production of images or graphical elements of the article, or in the collection and analysis of data, are invited to explicitly declare their use, mentioning the AI tool, the field of application, the search queries used and the date of use, in order to allow reproducibility and verification.
The author will remain responsible for the accuracy and correctness of any published content and guarantees compliance with the code of ethics and anti-plagiarism rules.
Authors who have used AI, or AI-assisted tools, are required to include a paragraph at the end of their manuscript, entitled "Declaration on Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process", with the following information:
"During the preparation of this paper the author(s) used [TOOL/SERVICE NAME] on [DD/MM/YYYYY] using the search terms: [SEARCH TERMS] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) have reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the publication."
Editors are not allowed to upload received manuscripts into artificial intelligence software, in order not to risk compromising privacy and copyright.
Reviewers undertake not to use artificial intelligence tools to evaluate manuscripts in order to guarantee the application of critical thinking and original assessment, as required for this work.
The University of Milan supports the adoption of FAIR data.
When published research is linked to data, authors are invited to make them available according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and to provide the link to the FAIR compliant repository where they have been archived.
Research Data (if applicable)
Authors are encouraged to publish their data in recommended repositories; authors from the University of Milan can use dataverse.unimi.it, the institutional open access repository of the University of Milan.
More information on the research data information page.
Editorial Principles
1. Accountability and responsibility for journal content
The editorial team take responsibility for all works published in The Reasoner. They strive to grant both scientific and editorial quality by double-blind peer review and careful editing. The journal maintains the integrity of the published record and grants long time preservation of all published content by using the LOCKKS system
2. Editorial independence and integrity
2.1 Commercial interests
The editorial team of The Reasoner make their decisions about proposals submitted to the journal and published works based on scienific merit alone and take full responsibility for their decisions.
The Reasoner embraces an open access policy and has no commercial interest, so the journal’s editorial processes and editors’ decisions are independent of any commercial consideration.
2.2 Relationship with the publisher
The Reasoner's editorial team work on a volunteer basis. The journal’s website is hosted by Università degli Studi di Milano, a public institution which has a scientific research and teaching mission and does not interfere with the freedom of choice and activities of the editorial team of The Reasoner, as long as their work is coherent with the scholarly mission of the journal.
2.3 Journal metrics and decision-making
The editorial team of The Reasoner do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, they strive to ensure that submitted papers are reviewed on purely scholarly grounds and that authors are not pressured to cite specific publications for non- scholarly reasons.
3. Editorial confidentiality
3.1 Authors' material
The Reasoner selects papers to be published through double-blind peer review. Peer reviewers are chosen by editors, who strive to protect the confidentiality of authors’ material and remind reviewers to do so as well. Submitted papers are never shared with editors of other journals, unless with the authors’ agreement or in cases of alleged misconduct (see below). Editors do not give any indication of a paper’s status with the journal to anyone other than the authors. [Journal Name] web-based submission system prevents unauthorised access. In the case of a misconduct investigation, it may be necessary to disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).
3.2 Reviewers
The Reasoner selects papers to be published through double-blind peer review. Therefore, the identity of the reviewers is always protected, unless an alleged or suspected reviewer’s misconduct compels the journal to disclose the reviewer’s name to a third party.
General editorial policies
4. Encourage maximum transparency and good publishing ethics
The Reasoner aims at granting authors, readers, reviewers, and all other parties involved maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting about its work.
4.1 Authorship and responsibility
All signing authors of works published on The Reasoner take responsibility for the conduct and validity of their research and for what is written in their contributions. Authors acknowledge that all contents are published under a Creative Commons Attribution - Share alike 4.0 International License.
Should any authorship dispute arise, it will be resolved at the appropriate institutional level or through other appropriate independent bodies. The editorial team will then act on the findings, for example by correcting authorship in published works.
4.2 Conflicts of interest and role of the funding source
Authors are required to declare any relevant financial or non-financial conflict of interest at the moment they submit their papers for publication on The Reasoner. Declarations of conflicting interests are published alongside the paper so that readers are informed about them.
4.3 Authors’ publishing ethics
The editorial team ensures that all published papers make a substantial new contribution to their field. They discourage publication of the minimum publishable unit of research, avoid duplicate or redundant publication unless it is fully declared and acceptable to all.
5. Responding to criticisms and concerns
The Reasoner welcomes and encourages criticism and debate.
5.1 Ensuring integrity of the published record - corrections
When genuine errors in works published on The Reasoner are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The paper will be corrected with a date of correction. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper will be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error). Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
5.2 Ensuring the integrity of the published record – suspected research or publication misconduct
If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of works published on The Reasoner, the editorial team will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, editors will take the matter to the appropriate institutional level. The editorial team will also do their best to respond to findings from research integrity organisations that indicate misconduct relating to works published on The Reasoner. The editorial team can decide to retract a paper if they are convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it. The editorial team will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. In general, they acknowledge collective responsibility for the research record of the journal and will act whenever they become aware of potential misconduct if at all possible.
5.3 Fostering scientific debate
The Reasoner welcomes criticisms by its readers, who are encouraged to submit Post-publication reviews and comments. Any criticisms that raise the possibility of misconduct will be further investigated even if they are received a long time after publication.
6. Ensuring a fair and appropriate peer review process
The editorial team at The Reasoner makes a fair and considerate use of peer review. The processes is detailed in the submission guidelines, where it is also indicated which parts of the journal are peer reviewed.
6.1 Decision whether to review
The editorial team may reject a paper without peer review when it is deemed unsuitable for The Reasoner. The decision not to send a paper for peer review is only based on the academic content of the paper, and it is not influenced by any of the authors' personal details, including their host institution.
6.2 Interaction with peer reviewers
The editorial team use competent peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication and avoids foreseeable conflicts of interest. The editorial team ensure that reviews are produced in a timely manner. Peer reviewers are told what is expected of them and are informed about any changes in editorial policies. Peer reviewers are asked to assess research and publication ethics issues (i.e., whether they think the research was done and reported ethically, or if they have any suspicions of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication). The editorial team have a policy to request a formal conflict of interest declaration from peer reviewers and ask peer reviewers to inform them about any such conflict of interest at the earliest opportunity so that they can make a decision on whether an unbiased review is possible. Certain conflicts of interest may disqualify a peer reviewer.
The editorial team emphasises the confidentiality of the material when sending it to peer reviewers.
6.3 Reviewers misconduct
The Reasoner takes very seriously misconducts in peer review. The editorial team pursues any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, are taken to the institutional level.
6.4 Interaction with authors
The editorial team make it clear to authors that the role of the peer reviewer is to provide recommendations on acceptance or rejection. Correspondence from editors is usually with the corresponding author, who have the responsibility to involve co-authors at all stages. The editors communicate with all authors at first submission and at final acceptance stage to ensure all authors are aware of the submission and have approved the publication. Normally, the editorial team pass on to the authors the peer reviewers’ comments in their entirety. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude parts of a review, if it, for example, contains libellous or offensive remarks.
The editorial team guarantee that such editorial discretion is not inappropriately used to suppress inconvenient comments. Should there be good reasons to involve additional reviewers at a late stage in the process, it is clearly communicated to authors. The final editorial decision and reasons for this are clearly communicated to authors and reviewers. If a paper is rejected, the editorial team welcome further enquries from the authors. Editors, however, are not obliged to overturn their decision.
7. Editorial decision-making
The editorial team at The Reasoner strives to guarantee that decisions on publications are as fair and unbiased as possible.
7.1 Editorial and journal processes
All editorial processes are made clear in the information for authors on the journal's webpage, where it is stated what is expected of authors, which types of papers are published, and how papers are handled by the journal. All editors are fully familiar with the journal policies, vision, and scope. The final responsibility for all decisions rests with the editor.
7.2 Editorial conflicts of interest
The editorial team members are not involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest, for example if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, if they own stock in a particular company, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors. [Journal Name] has a process in place to handle papers submitted by editors or editorial board members to ensure unbiased and independent handling of such papers. This process is stated in the information for authors