No abstract

Last year saw the publication of the twenty-fifth volume of the BJHP. After the publication of the twentieth volume, I carried out an analysis of the contents of the first twenty volumes on which I reported in my Editorial at the beginning of 2013 (21.1). I also outlined our aims in taking the journal forward. So let me take this opportunity to update that earlier account with an analysis of the last five volumes of the BJHP to assess the extent to which we have succeeded in our aims and to indicate our current vision for the future of the journal. Before doing so, however, let me first express my gratitude to all those who have contributed to the successful running of the journal last year: to Katie Johnson, our excellent Production Editor at Taylor and Francis, to Katharine O'Reilly and Chen Long for all their work as our Editorial Assistants, and to the Associate Editors and Board Members of the BJHP and all the many referees whose reports are the foundation stone of our rigorous peer review system. Particular thanks go to Federico Boccaccini and Anna Marmodoro, who co-edited the special issue on 'Mental Powers in Early Modern Philosophy' (25.3), and Sarah Hutton, who edited the special issue on 'Cambridge Platonism' (25.5). Submissions last year, at just over 330, were around the same level as in 2016, and we published fifty-one articles, three discussion notes and three review articles. Excluding the special issues, the acceptance rate has thus stayed constant at around 12%. Other key statistics are also more or less the same: the average length of time between submission and first decision has been just over 50 days, between submission and final decision just over 60 days, and over 95% of first decisions were made within three months. Articles continue to be pre-published online within two months of acceptance and appear in print within six to twelve months, depending on the scheduling of the special issues. In effect, there is no backlog, since we regard six to twelve months as enabling the ideal balance between a careful production process and timely publication. This year we have special issues in the pipeline on British Idealism, edited by Colin Tyler and James Connelly, and on experimental philosophy, edited by Alberto Vanzo. Work is also under way on future special issues on early modern women philosophers, French spiritualism, Kant's method and its reception, and historiography. Let me turn, then, to the analysis of the contents of the BJHP, with particular reference to the last five years. The analysis appears as an Appendix to this

Analytic philosophy, as we recognize it today, has its origins in the work of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell around the turn of the twentieth century. Both were trained as mathematicians and became interested in the foundations of mathematics. In seeking to demonstrate that arithmetic could be derived from logic, they revolutionized logical theory and in the process developed powerful new forms of logical analysis, which they employed in seeking to resolve certain traditional philosophical problems. There were important differences in their approaches, however, and these approaches are still pursued, adapted, and debated today. In this paper I shall elucidate the origins of analytic philosophy in the work of Frege and Russell and explain the revolutionary significance of their methods of logical analysis.

No abstract