Guidelines and Policies for Entry Content

In this document, we develop guidelines and policies concerning thecontent of entries written for theStanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy. Authors should not just familiarize themselves withSections 1–4 below (and any remaining section that appliesto their case), but also read ourCopyright Policy. The latter makes it clear that by sending us their entry, they are agreeing to the Copyright Policy.

• 1. Entry Substance, Style and Length
• 2. Entry Format
  • 2.1 Canonical Sections of an SEP Entry
  • 2.2 The Use of Footnotes
  • 2.3 The Use of Special Symbols
• 3. Writing a New Entry in Word or LaTeX
• 4. Entry Revision

1. Entry Substance, Style and Length

TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is intended to serveas an authoritative reference work suitable for use by professionalsand students in the field of philosophy, as well as by all othersinterested in authoritative discussions on philosophical topics.Entries should therefore be scholarly, written with the highest ofprofessional standards, yet strive to be of interest to as wide anaudience as possible. Entries should focus on the philosophical issuesand arguments rather than on sociology and individuals, particularlyin discussions of topics in contemporary philosophy. In other words,entries should be “idea-driven” rather than“person-driven”. One indication that the entry is“person-driven” is that the section and subsection titlesinvoke the names of philosophers; this should be avoided, though theeditors may make an exception if the entry is primarily historical incharacter. (If in doubt, check with the editors.) Non-historical,concept-based entries should therefore focus onthe philosophicalproblems to be solved and on the extent to which distinctions,ideas, concepts, or arguments being put forward solve the problem. Theinternal logic of these distinctions, ideas and arguments shouldtherefore drive the discussion, so that the reader will morefrequently encounter sentences thatcite philosophers withoutcoming across as beingabout them.

Authors should try to structure the entry so as to organize the ideasinto common themes and avoid where possible straight historicalpresentations of “who said what when and where”. Entriesshould avoid having numerous sentences of the form “X (1960, 11)argues that …”, “Y responds that … (1964,8)”, “Z additionally requires (1970, 2) that…”, etc. Rather, the ideas and arguments should, atleast much more often than not, be the focus of the sentences, withinline, parenthetical citations at the end of the sentence thatdocument the source of the idea, argument, etc. Moreover:

• Authors should strive tominimize the use of jargon,and introduce any such terms of art in plain or previously definedlanguage. Entries should strive to be self-contained, so that readerscan understand your entry without having to read a lots of otherentries.
• Biographical entries should be critical (i.e., include mentionand explanation of works critical of the subject's ideas) and not behagiographical.
• Biographical and historical entries should not only introducethe primary literature (and cite the passages in the primaryliterature which support the description of the ideas beingexplained), but also should give evidence that theyareinformed by the secondary literature; such entries shouldinclude citations to the secondary literature when explaining keyideas for which there is significant discussion in the secondaryliterature (e.g., questions of interpretation, criticisms, etc.)
• Technical entries will be expected to include definitions of thetechnical terms used.
• The sources of all quotations should be clearly identified.
• Authors should avoid reference to unpublished andinaccessible materials.

Entries should be objective/neutral analyses/surveys of theliterature and offer a broad perspective of the topic rather thanadvocate a point of view. Authors should see their mission as that ofintroducing advanced undergraduates (or grad students and colleagues),who may have no special knowledge of the topic, to the main issues andarguments discussed in the most important pieces of primary andsecondary literature on the topic, so as to bring their readers to astate where they can read that literature with insight andunderstanding. SEP entries should haveno other agenda thanto achieve this mission in a way that the balance of discussion in theentry is in proportion to, and reflects, the balance in theliterature. Clarity of substance and style should also be one of themost important goals.

Encyclopedia entries should therefore not be idiosyncraticor polemical, and should avoid ‘editorializing’ valuejudgments in the voice of the entry. The entry should not promote, orbe a showcase for, the author's work, but rather strive for balance bypresenting the important arguments that have been put forward on bothsides of an issue. Controversial claims should be identified as such.The entry should avoid such constructions as “as I (we) haveargued (will argue) (elsewhere/previously/in this essay)…” or “my (our) interpretation of this passage is…”, etc. And, in general, authors should avoid firstperson pronouns (“I”, “me”, “my”,“we”, “us”, or “our”) to stateclaims in the voice of the entry, even to indicate what the author (orauthors) intend to discuss. Authors should not use their SEP entry toraise, or respond to, objections if those objections and responsesaren't already in the published literature, in which case they can benoted and cited without making definitive judgments that aren'tsupported by the literature. Authors may, however, illuminate varioussides of an issue by presenting potential objections and responses aslong as the entry remains neutral and/or reflects the weight ofscholarly opinion.

Authors should also be circumspect with respect to thenumber of references to their own work, though obviously, since theyare experts on the topic and typically will have written widely on it,occasional references may be appropriate. The editors oftheEncyclopedia will ensure that entries do not overstep thebounds of propriety in this regard.

Authors should not cite their own dissertations. Those who believethat it is necessary should seek an exception beforehand. The SEPeditors will then provide a list of criteria that need to be met andif the author demonstrates that those criteria are satisfied,permission may be given.

The length of entries should depend on the topic. SEP entries nowhave a reading length (i.e., not including the Bibliography) averaging12,000 words. Entries may be shorter or longer depending on thebreadth of the topic and the amount of literature to introduce andexplain. Please contact us if the entry looks like it will grow tomore than 12,000 words. We encourage authors to organize longerentries in a modular style, so that readers can understand latersections without having to read all of the earlier ones. In somecases, it helps to write a set of nested, cross-linked documentsrather than write a single, linear document. By this we meanthat overly detailed, highly technical, or highly scholarly materialshould be put into separate HTML (“supplementary”)documents and linked into the main entry. (See below.) In suchcircumstances the main (index.html) file for the entry should stillprovide a comprehensive overview of the entire topic. This way, themain entry should become readable by an intelligent undergraduate in asitting of about an hour or two. More advanced readers can follow thelinks to the highly technical, detailed or scholarly material. Such across-linked set of documents will therefore be accessible to a wideaudience. However, authors should create such “nested”entries only if it seems unlikely that a separate entry intheEncyclopedia will be created to discuss the supplementarymaterial.

2. Entry Format

2.1 Canonical Sections of an SEP Entry

The following constitute the “canonical” sectionsof an SEP entry. Each section must be present, though thefinal Acknowledgments section is optional.

• Introduction (Definition)
• Internal Links
• Main Sections of the Entry
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• Acknowledgments (optional)

These are discussed in turn.

Introduction

The Introduction should contain a brief definition of the subject.This may take one or two paragraphs, and if possible, these paragraphsshould contain some statement of the subject's interest andsignificance. The main topics to be covered in the body of the entrymay be mentioned here, so that the reader will get some idea of whatis to follow.

Internal Links

The internal links should be a list of the main sections of theentry, and each item in the list should be a link to that section.The HTML commands needed to do this are included in the template andin the annotated sourcefile.

Main Sections of the Entry

The structure and sectioning of the entry is at the discretion ofthe author. However, SEP sections should be numbered using thefollowing scheme:

1. Section One
2. Section Two
    2.1 Subsection one of Section Two
    2.2 Subsection two of Section Two
3. Section Three
    3.1 Subsection one of Section Three
        3.1.1 Subsubsection one of Subsection 3.1
        3.1.2 Subsubsection two of Subsection 3.1
    3.2 Subsection two of Section Three

Subsections and subsubsections should not be introduced unlessthere are at least two of them.

We encourage authors to include a Chronology or “Life” section inBiographical entries. Moreover, a “History” section is called for inthe discussion of many topics.

Bibliography

SEP House Style for Bibliographies

Please use the following bibliographic format:

• Dodgson, Henrietta, 1885, “The Evidence for the Existence of Snarks”,Journal of Ornithology, 25(1): 22–44.
• Hanes, Aristo P., and Wendy Tate, 1999a,Deliverance from Evil Bandersnatches, London: Houghton & Miflin.
• ––– (eds.), 1999b,Papers on Alice,Penrith: Bilgewater Press, 2nd edition.
• Wunderman, Bill, forthcoming, “Why One Shouldn't Gimble”,Journal of the History of Technical Terminology, first online13 March 2021. doi:10.3344/xx3ed
• Madsen, Leslie, 1924, “Slithy Toves”, in Sarah Johnson(ed.),History of Poetry, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 302–317.
• Tate, Wendy, 2002, “Remarks on Boojums”, in WilliamSeeg, Robert Summer, and Dana Talker (eds.),Reflections on theFoundations of Looking Glasses: Essays in Honor of Henry Dodgson(Lecture Notes in Fantasy: Volume 15), Urbana, IL: AmericanAssociation of English Fantasy Enthusiasts, pp. 410–419;reprinted in Tate (ed.) 2005, pp. 43–53 [page reference isto the original].
• Tate, Wendy (ed.), 2005,The Provenance of Pure Fantasy:Essays in the Philosophy of Literature, Oxford: ClearwaterPress.
• Terrell, Nicholas, 1888 [1999], “How toGimble”,Proceedings of the Jabberwocky Society, 32:1–10; reprinted in Aristo Hanes & Wendy Tate (eds.) 1999b,pp. 32–42.

With this style of Bibliography, you can then cite these sources inyour main text in the following ways, with placement of parenthesesdependent on whether you are referring to the author, thework, or both, respectively:

• Terrell (1888 [1999, 7]) claims that snarks gimble on New Englandponds in the early spring.
• It is argued in Hanes 1999a (Ch. 4) that bandersnatches cancause environmental damage.
• Some authors have claimed that snarks are extinct (Dodgson 1885,23).

Please note that we strive to eliminate the use of dates that wouldmislead the reader into thinking that work is published much later.So please avoid such anachronisms as “Plato 1962”,“Locke 1950”, “Confucius 2003”, etc. Instead,in the case where publication dates are not known, please just citethe title of the work. E.g., in a sentence discussing one of Plato'sdialogues, you can simply cite “(Parmenides,132a-b)”, and then list this in the Bibliography as:

• Plato,Parmenides, inPlato: Complete Works, John Cooper and Douglas Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.

Similarly, cite sections of Locke'sEssay by sectionnumber rather than by page number, so that those with other editionscan find the passage you cite. So, for example, to citeLocke'sTwo Treatises of Government, you could refer to it as“Locke 1689” in the text (using the original year ofpublication), and then include the following listing in theBibliography:

• Locke, John, 1689,Two Treatises of Government,in Peter Laslett (ed.),Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

And for citing Confucius’Analects:

• Confucius,Analects, Edward Slingerland (trans.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2003.

Please also note: (1) The Bibliography section may be divided intosubsections such as Primary Literature and Secondary Literature,or References Cited and Other Important Works, etc. and(2) The Bibliography is reserved primarily forrefereedmaterial, whether print-based or on the web.

Citations to Online Materials

Citations to online materials require special handling. If a journalarticle appears in an electronic journal that isn't printed, then afull URL should be identified. E.g., you would reference AlexanderGeorge's entry in thePhilosopher's Imprint as follows:

• Chadha, Monima and Shaun Nichols, 2019, “Self-ConsciousEmotions Without a Self”,Philosopher’s Imprint,19(38): 1–16 [Chadha and Nichols 2019 available online].

However, sometimes an article is primarily in a print-based journal.That journal may have an online version, or the journal may not havean electronic version but instead the author has put a preprint at anarchive site or on their own web page. We encourage authors to createlinks to online versions of refereed, published material, even if theonly version online is a preprint of something that has beenpublished. In these cases, a URL need not be identified explicitly(since the print publication information will suffice), but aspecially annotated link should be included, as follows:

1. Links which lead to online versions of a published paper or book at thepublisher's website, should be annotated “[Available online]”. These are independent archivalversions, and any changes to the articles must conform with thepolicies of the publisher. Note that the SEP accepts links only tomaterial that is freely available on the web.
2. Links which lead to online preprints of a published paper at anindependent archive site should be annotated “[Preprintavailable online]”. Since the preprint site is an independentarchive, the author must conform to their policies for making changesto the preprinted articles.
3. Links which lead to online preprints or reprints of a publishedarticle at theauthor's website should be annotated“[Preprint available from the author]” or “[Reprint available from theauthor]”, respectively. This applies even to PDF reprints sent to theauthor from the publisher and hosted on the author's site, or scannedversions which the author has made of material published elsewhere.The reader should know that this is not an independent “archival”version. In cases where it is unclear whether the author's web siteis serving a preprint or a reprint, the default annotation should be“[Preprint available from the author]”.

None of the above applies if the article to be cited is notpublished or forthcoming in a refereed journal. In such cases, if theonline material is simply self-archived (possibly on a preprint sitesuch as arXiv.org or on the author's home page), then the citationinformation for references to those articles should be put into theOther Internet Resources section of the entry, possibly in a special“Preprint” section.

How to Cite SEP Entries in the Bibliography

Sometimes an author will have occasion to cite another SEP entry inthe Bibliography, as opposed to just listing other SEP entries in theRelated Entries section. (For example, if an author quotes a passagefrom another SEP entry.) Proper citation of SEP entries in theBibliography should follow our citation guidelines, which indicatethat one should cite only an “archived” version of an SEPentry. To cite an SEP entry in your Bibliography, such as SukjaeLee’s entry on Occasionalism, you would list it as follows:

• Lee, Sukjae, “Occasionalism”,The StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zaltaand Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/occasionalism/>.

Academic Tools

This section will be generated automatically by the SEP system.Authors need not add any content to this section.

Other Internet Resources

The author should cite material on the web that is of excellentvalue but which may not have undergone a referee process. The authorserves as referee for these materials (and our subject editors willreferee these choices). The items listed in this section can besegregated into subsections, such as:

Online Manuscripts
…
Websites
…

To complete this section, authors are encouraged to conduct an onlinesearch of the web for webpages and websites withhigh-quality,academic content on the topic in question. Such webpages andwebsites should be written and maintained by qualified individualshaving a clear expertise on the topic. The task of finding suchexternal websites is made considerably simpler by using one of thepremier search engines which rank sites on the basis of the number oflinks to them on the web (i.e., these links are like web citations).Here are some useful ones:

Google
DuckDuckGo

Please do not create links to websites that are not maintained byqualified individuals. In addition, authors shouldnot linkto their own homepages or to their own list of online publications,though if you have an online publication that is relevant to yourtopic, it may be appropriate to include a link to it along with otheronline papers that are relevant to the topic. (Remember that theBibliography section is reserved for refereed publications and so ifyour online paper has also been refereed and published somewhere, itshould be included in the Bibliography, if cited in the body of yourentry, and not in the Other Internet Resources section.) Again, oursubject editors will check that self-citations are within the boundsof propriety.

Finally, the SEP prefers not to create links to websites or webpagesthat are behind subscription walls, since this disenfranchises thoseof our readers who cannot afford to pay the price of admission.So please confine the links you create here to “open access”resources.

Related Entries

Please list the names of the most important concepts and philosophersthat occur in your entry. You may list keywords that do not appear astopics in our Table of Contents if you feel that they are important.We are running software which will notice the discrepancy and alertthe Editor. A decision will be made whether or not to include a newentry on that topic. If we decide that the topic is too specializedor otherwise inappropriate for theEncyclopedia, we willeliminate this keyword from your list in the Related Entriessection.

Acknowledgments

This section is optional. A short paragraph thankingthose who contributed to the high quality of the entry isin order, however.

2.2 The Use of Footnotes

Footnotes may be included. They can often help to shorten the mainpage of the entry to make it more readable. Please note, however,that they should not be used solely for citations, or even lists ofcitations. All citations should be included in the main text inparentheses, in the following format: (Author Year, page). Multiplecitations should be separated by a semicolon.

Please note: If you arerevising your entry, and you want toadd or delete a footnote, you do not need to renumber the footnotes byhand. We have a script which will do this automatically. Pleasesimply bring it to our attention and we renumber the notes for you.

2.3 The Use of Special Symbols

Modern web browsers can now support most Unicode characters.So most of the characters used in Word and LaTeX can be convertedto similar characters in HTML. There are some exceptions, however.In general, when writing an SEP entry in Word or LaTeX, it is bestto stick to well-known and widely used symbols.

If you have decided to write your entry in HTML, then as you read thefinal section below, note the subsection on Using SpecialCharacters.

3. Writing a New Entry in Word or LaTeX

Assuming that authors submit a document that is within the normalrange of an average SEP entry, then the author may submit either aWord (or RTF) document, or a LaTeX document. SEP documenteditors will convert Word and LaTeX documents to HTML. BecausetheEncyclopedia is being served over the World Wide Web, allentries must eventually be formatted in the HTML (HyperText MarkupLanguage) document format for delivery over the web. This is theformatting language that controls the way text, graphics, and linksare displayed in web browsers. Entries prepared using other documentformats have to be converted to HTML.

Normally, the SEP will help authors convert entries prepared inWord, RTF, or LaTeX into HTML. However, authors should be aware that,unless they use LaTeX, the SEP doesn't have the resources to convertespecially long entries or entries that have lengthy and detailedmathematical or logical formatting. LaTeX is the preferred format forsuch entries, since we now use HTML/MathJax, which allows us toembed LaTeX formatting tags within an HTML document (seeMathJax).Authors that use other formats for these kinds of submission may beasked to provide some assistance, either by doing the conversionthemselves or by reimbursing the SEP for the extra time its documenteditors must spend converting and formatting the documents inHTML. (All our documents are now being prepared so that they parse asvalid forms of the version of HTML known “HTML 5”.)

Please note that there are special instructions to followfor Entry Revision. See the section onEntry Revision below.

To begin writing an entry, authors should follow our instructions fordownloading the sourcefile of the “Entry Template”. (Theseinstructions were sent to you when you accepted your commission andthey indicate that you can download the template by logging onto theauthors' web interface, for which you have a login ID and password.)Alternatively, you may obtain the template directly from:

• Word Template (.doc)
• Word Template (.docx)
• LaTeX Template (.tex)

Once the template is downloaded, the author may simply “Open” thatfile in Word, or use it as the basis of a LaTeX document.

NOTE: If you have a preference for writing your entry in HTML, see our webpageIf You Choose to Write Your Entry in HTML.

4. Entry Revision

Because theEncyclopedia is designed to be a dynamicreference work, authors are responsible for maintaining andperiodically updating their entries. Specifically, authors areexpected: (1) to update their entries regularly (typically every 4-5years), especially in response to important new research on the topicof the entry, and (2) to revise their entriesin a timely wayin light of any valid criticism they receive, whether it comes fromthe subject editors on our Editorial Board, other members of theprofession, or interested readers.

In connection with (1), authors should update the Bibliography and theOther Internet Resources sections of their entries regularly, to keeppace with significant new publications, both in print and on the web.If important new publications affect the currency of the main text,then the main text should be altered so as to reflect the importantideas in the new research. However, authors should ensure that theentry doesn’t continue to get longer with each revision. This mayrequire retiring discussions that are no longer central, and/orstreamlining existing passages to make room for the latestresearch. Since the Bibliography and Other Internet Resources don’tcount towards the reading length, authors may add new works withoutreducing existing material in those sections. If an update looks likeit will substantially increase the entry’s reading length, please bein touch with the Editors. (Recall that for most entries, an advancedundergraduate is meant to be able to understand, and finish, the entrywithin an hour or two.)

In connection with (2), the validity of criticism shall bedetermined by the Editor, typically in consultation with the relevantmembers of the Editorial Board. The length of time required for a“timely” revision will be negotiable and will both respectthe author's current commitments and reflect the seriousness of thecriticism. However, entries which require revision but which are notrevised within the negotiated timetable may be retired from the activeportion of theEncyclopedia and left in theEncyclopedia Archives until such time as the entry is revisedso as to engage the valid criticisms in question.

How to Revise Your Entry

Once an entry has been published, authorsshould no longer use Word or their own HTML-editor to revise the file(with two exceptions, see below). The HTML in published SEP entrieshas been carefully formatted so that it parses as valid atvalidator.w3.org. Word and other HTML-editors (with few exceptions)will damage the HTML, for they will rewrite our internationallycompliant HTML with hundreds of unnecessary formatting instructionsand generate an HTML file that fails to parse as HTML againstinternational standards. Please DO NOT REVISE by downloading yourentry and revising it in in Word or your own HTML editor. That willcorrupt the file. Please follow the instructions below.

Making Modifications:

There is a preferred, recommended, and easy-to-use protocol formaking minor changes to your entry. If you would like to add/revise aparagraph, add an item to the Bibliography, fix a typo, etc., then theproper procedure to follow is to log in to our Author Interface atthe URL that has been sent to you.

Once logged in, initiate the action “Revise Entry onServer”. This will allow you to directly edit a copy of yourentry on our machine (from whichever browser you are using). There isan Instructions/Help file for using this software. However, as youwill see, when you use the Revise Entry function, you will be promptedto select the file you wish to edit. In most cases, you will selectthe main document, which is called “index.html” (someentries have multiple files, e.g., a main document“index.html” and supplementary documents). Note that whenselecting the file, you have the option to:

• Edit a copy of the entry by using a Word-like (graphical) WYSIWYG (“whatyou see is what you get”) editor.
• Edit a copy of the HTML sourcefile directly through your browser.

If you choose the first option, to edit the file using a graphical,Word-like HTML editor:

a new browser window will open up and you will be presentedwith a formatted and editable copy of your entry, with menu items at the topfor adding italics, bold, etc. This should be familiar to you, asthe menu icons for editing the entry will be similar to those you would use in Microsoft Word.

If you choose the second option, to edit the HTML source:

a new browser window will open up and you will be presentedwith a page on which the file you wanted to edit is divided up intosegments, each containing a “View” box and an “Edit” box. You willfind the material you wish to edit in the View box, since the text inthis box is rendered, or formatted, HTML. Then you edit in thecorresponding Edit box, which contains the HTML sourcefile (which isplain text with markup tags). It should be clear how to add contentin the Edit box.

If you choose this option, please do notcut and paste from a Word document into an editing window unless you(1) first save the Word document as a “plain text” file, and then (2)cut and paste from the plain text file. Moreover, please do not cutand paste from a Word-generated HTML file into an editing window boxunless you are sure that you are not pasting corrupted HTML code. Youcan cut and paste in HTML code, but you should be able to see the codeitself and determine that it is simple HTML and not something thatlooks overly complicated.

Every so often, you should SAVE your work, using the Save buttons atthe left or at the top of the page. You may SAVE your work withoutsubmitting it for review, but when you believe you have completed therevisions you need to make, use the Save/Submit option, or return tothe authors main menu page and use the Submit/Resubmit Privates Filesto Editor function.

The above procedure will work for most major, as well as minormodifications. If you wish to make a structural change to your entry,then the editors would be happy to help you reorganize the HTML in thefile. They can create new sections and rearrange others. They canget the file into a state where you can then use the Revise Entry onServer function.

Please note: If you arerevising your entry, and you want toadd or delete a footnote, you do not need to renumber the footnotes byhand. We have a script which will do this automatically. Pleasesimply bring it to our attention and we renumber the notes for you.

Significant Structural Revisions or Rewriting Published Entries:

In some rare cases, where authors plan to make significant structuralrevisions or to rewrite their entries, they may write to us to obtainpermission to update using Word or LaTeX. In that case, we willprepare a file for them to edit – we'll make sure that wegenerate a file in the appropriate format from the currently publishedentry.

In some still rarer cases, authors who can use a plain text editor towrite raw HTML code can contact us and let us know that they arecapable of doing so. We'll then send you a current HTML sourcefile toedit. We might ask to set up a test, to check that your plain texteditor is not damaging the file.