Journal list Promote Sponsor
verified SJR 0,359 · Q1 • database Scopus / SJR & Web of Science & DOAJ indexed
Theoria: Revista de Teoria, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia
Spain · UPV/EHU Press
workspace_premium Q1 — History and Philosophy of Science visibility_off Double blind peer review lock_open Open Access · DOAJ

Theoria: Revista de Teoria, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia

Theoria: Revista de Teoria, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia is a journal indexed in SJR in History and Philosophy of Science and Philosophy with an H index of 18. It is an CC BY-NC-ND Journal with a Double blind peer review review system The scope of the journal is focused on philosophy of science, history of science, philosophy of logic, analytic philosophy. It has an SJR impact factor of 0,359 and it has a best quartile of Q1. It is published in English, Spanish; Castilian. It has an SJR impact factor of 0,359.

ISSN: 0495-4548
Publisher: UPV/EHU Press
Category: History and Philosophy of Science
Indexation: verifiedScopus / SJR verifiedWeb of Science verifiedDOAJ
open_in_new Portal NPD menu_book Author guidelines
schedule CountryOfPapers database fields
SJR Impact Factor trending_up
0,359 Q1
H-index 18
Acceptance rate pie_chart
44%
Source Acceptance_Rate
Time to publication hourglass_top
7 weeks
Field Average_time_publication_weeks
Publication cost (APC) payments
NPD Open Access
Non-OA path NPD

Metrics

Scimago and CountryOfPapers database fields

Scopus / SJR Web of Science DOAJ

SJR Impact

0,359

H-index

18

Docs (year)

20

Docs 3y

63

Total refs

971

Cites 3y

40

Citable 3y

60

Cites/Doc 2y

0.46

Ref/Doc

48.55

Immediate OA

—

Embargoed OA

NPD

Non OA / Submission

- €

shield Researcher voice

Name good journals. Call out predatory ones.

Share what peer review, fees, and timelines were really like. Praise fair editors. Flag APC traps, fake metrics, or spam solicitations — with facts from your submission.

Fair & fast peer review Clear APC / no surprise fees Suspected predatory Fake impact claims
rate_review Write an honest review

Researcher reviews

sentiment_dissatisfied No reviews yet — be the first to share an honest experience.
User
* Only to validate authenticity — identity is not shown publicly.

FAQs