What is the IUHPST Essay Prize in History and Philosophy of Science and how do I enter?

The IUHPST Essay Prize in History and Philosophy of Science is a biennial competition run by the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (IUHPST), the parent union of DLMPST. Its stated aim is to encourage fresh methodological thinking on the history and philosophy of science and related areas. To enter the 2027 round, you submit an essay by 15 January 2027; the full entry requirements and submission details are published on the commissions' page of dlmps.org, and that page is the authoritative source you should check before preparing a submission.

Who runs it and why it exists

IUHPST is the umbrella body that contains DLMPST (the Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology). The prize sits at the union level rather than inside a single division, which fits its subject matter: it is about method in the history and philosophy of science broadly, not about logic or formal methodology specifically.

Two features follow from the "biennial" and "methodological" framing:

• It runs every two years. The current cycle is the 2027 prize, so a missed deadline means waiting for the next round rather than catching a later deadline in the same year.
• The emphasis is on method. The call frames the prize around "fresh methodological thinking," so an essay that only reports a result without reflecting on how the history or philosophy of science is done is a weaker fit than one that argues for a better way of approaching a problem.

Key facts at a glance

How to enter: what you can do now

The site announcement gives the deadline and points to the commissions' page for "all detailed information," but it does not reproduce the word limit, formatting rules, eligibility, or submission mechanism. So the practical sequence is:

1. Open the commissions' page on dlmps.org. This is where the full rules live. Read it before you write, because requirements like length or eligibility affect how you plan the essay.
2. Confirm the deadline against the page. The announcement states 15 January 2027; verify it on the detailed page in case anything has been updated.
3. Check eligibility and scope. The prize covers history and philosophy of science "and related areas." If your work sits at a boundary (for example, philosophy of technology or history of a social science), check the detailed page rather than assuming.
4. Prepare the essay around a methodological contribution. Since the prize explicitly seeks fresh methodological thinking, make the methodological argument visible rather than leaving it implicit in a case study.
5. Submit through the route specified on the commissions' page. The announcement does not name a submission portal or email for the prize, so do not assume one; use whatever the detailed page specifies.

Verification before you submit

• The deadline on the detailed page matches 15 January 2027.
• Your essay meets the stated length and formatting rules.
• You have followed the specified submission method exactly.
• You have kept a copy of your submission confirmation.

Common pitfalls

• Treating the site announcement as the full rules. It is a call for entries, not the rulebook. The commissions' page is where the operative details are.
• Confusing the prize with the congress. The same site also carries the call for papers for the 2027 CLMPST congress in Kobe (proposals due 15 November 2026). These are separate opportunities with separate deadlines and separate submission routes; a congress proposal is not a prize entry.
• Missing the biennial rhythm. Because the prize runs every two years, planning around a later deadline in the same cycle is not an option.
• Leaving the methodological point implicit. The prize's stated focus is methodological freshness; an essay whose contribution is purely substantive may read as off-brief.

If you are deciding whether to enter

The prize is a reasonable fit if you have work that (a) falls within history and philosophy of science or an adjacent area, and (b) makes an argument about how the field should be done, not only about what is true in it. If your work is primarily a formal logic result or a congress talk, the CLMPST call is the more natural route. If you are unsure whether your topic counts as a "related area," resolve that against the commissions' page before investing in a full draft.