The European Journal of Philosophy was founded in 1993. I would like to offer some remarks about what we have become and how we plan to move forward after a quarter century of publishing philosophy. In his opening editorial to the journal's inaugural issue, Mark Sacks, the founder of EJP, began by celebrating the rich exchanges across cultures and countries that had characterised philosophical debate in Europe historically. However, he then proceeded to bemoan the insularity and intellectual fragmentation that had marred European philosophy for much of its recent 20th century past—a past from which, for example, the contrast between “analytical” philosophy and “continental” philosophy arose. Sacks founded EJP because he sensed a growing awareness among philosophers, both in Europe and beyond, of the need to overcome this insularity. Was the time ripe for bringing down intellectual walls in Europe? It certainly seemed that way. Sacks closed his statement with a note of caution, however, wondering whether the project would take hold. Would there be contributors and readers out there for whom European thought, seen through its various lenses, constitutes a common heritage? Sacks' project has been a major success. EJP is now one of the premier journals of philosophy. The journal is recognised across the globe for the quality of its essays and the breadth of its contributions to both historical and systematic debates. During the first decade of the journal's existence, and indeed beyond that, it was often a struggle, I am told, to fill an issue. (Those were the days!) We now receive well over 600 submissions annually and tend to accept fewer than 10% of them. The last 25 years has seen an explosion of work in post-Kantian philosophy. Much of this work has penetrated contemporary philosophical debates within and beyond Europe, just as those debates have informed the reception of the various post-Kantian traditions. That the very best of this work has a home at EJP has been crucial its flourishing. But there is far more to do to realise and develop Sacks' original vision. Sacks interestingly did not mention the contrast between “analytical” philosophy and “continental” philosophy in his opening editorial. This may have been due to a healthy suspicion of the peculiar juxtaposition of labels in this familiar dichotomy. But I also suspect he did not mention it because bringing down that particular intellectual wall (however ideological) would have underestimated the ambitions of the project. For Sacks was concerned no less about more local, more fine-grained, forms of insularity across the diverse European philosophical scene, with traditions of philosophy, and members of one tradition working in different countries, isolated from one another, working within their respective cabals without benefiting from the kind of cultural cross-fertilisation that historically has played an important part in philosophical progress. The idea was to set up one address where philosophers across the scene could send their work and benefit from reading that of others. From the vantage point of such ambitions, which include an element of geographical diversity, the journal has some way to go. The great majority of our authors consistently come from the United Kingdom and the United States. Though the study of German philosophy and its history has a strong presence in the journal, fewer than 10% of our authors per year, and indeed fewer than 10% of those who submit, originate from Germany. Likewise for France. The numbers are even smaller for Italy, Spain, and the rest of Europe, much less South America and East Asia, where there are strong and growing centres of interest in European philosophy. Some of the reasons for this are of course beyond our control. For example, the monograph, not the essay, is crucial for academic promotion in a number of these locales; what's more, the anonymous peer-review journal is not a staple of academic culture or indeed prestige across all of Europe. Even so, it is clear that we need to do better to make EJP a more attractive destination for philosophers living and working beyond the English-speaking world. We need to do more than simply remind possible contributors that, though papers are published in English, submissions are also welcome in French, German, Italian, and Spanish. To this end, we propose the following initiatives, which we hope will attract a broader and more diverse range of authors to consider EJP a forum for their work. First, we have refreshed our EDITORIAL BOARD to reflect the kind of philosophical and geographical diversity that we aim to represent. Each member of the Board does work that exemplifies the kind of research we wish to attract, and I thank all those who accepted the invitation. Second, we have decided to bring back the FEATURE ARTICLE, a consistent presence of early numbers of the journal: this was an invited essay, authored generally by a philosopher working in Europe, the subject of which was usually the current social and political situation in Europe. The early and mid-90s obviously presented a wealth of occasions for philosophical reflection on European unity. We have now entered a period in which the question of Europe is back on the table; it is important again that a forum be provided for timely philosophical reflection on the fate of the European project. Third, we will publish annually at least one piece of PHILOSOPHICAL ART CRITICISM. This will respond to an appropriate exhibition in one of the museums of Europe and will be authored by a writer who uses the respective exhibition to do philosophy (not primarily to assess the merits and demerits of the exhibition). Finally, we are introducing an annual PRIZE ESSAY competition, open to early career researchers; the first topic is Transcendental Philosophy, to be awarded in October of 2019. (Please see website for details.) I'd like to close by first thanking my immediate predecessors Bob Stern and Chris Hookway for their role in putting EJP on the map. Over the course of its relatively short life, the journal has migrated from Essex to Sheffield to Oxford, where it has been based since I took over in 2014. Sebastian Grève, our current Assistant Editor, now manages the journal with judicious care from day to day. I would also like to thank the members of the Editorial Committee. In addition to making our annual weekend of philosophical and editorial discussion a real delight, they help me receive and assess submissions. They are Barbara Carnevali, Dina Emundts, Andrew Huddleston (Reviews Editor), Sue James, Jessica Leech, Christoph Menke, Fred Neuhouser, Beate Rössler, and Bob Stern. All editorial decisions are my own, but I certainly could not handle the range of material coming into EJP without their expertise, wise council, and good will.