Peer Review Process

The editors of the journal are ruled by the international standards of ethics of scientific publications, developed by The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The decision to publish the manuscript is taken by the entire editorial board, which is collectively responsible for the materials published in the journal.

The content of the manuscripts is evaluated, first of all, from the point of view of authenticity of the content and scientific significance, correspondence of the research subjects and the current legal norms in copyright and plagiarism.

The decision to publish the article is carried out on the principle of double-blind review, on the basis of positive reviews of members of the editorial board who are specialists in the subject, external researchers are also invited, whose range of scientific interests coincides with the topic of the article.

Reviewers must consider the following questions and give the answer "Yes" or "No":

1. Are the results original?
2. Are the methods adequate?
3. Does the analysis correspond to the conclusion?

Reviewers indicate their opinion:

1. Accept without change.
2. Accept after taking into account the comments of the reviewer.
3. Reject.

Basic Rules for Peer Review Process

  • The Editorial board makes a decision on paper publication after the prepublication peer review procedure.
  • Correspondence of the papers with the scientific specialization of the journal shall be determined by the Editor-in-chief who appoints for each article one (sometimes two or three) reviewer among leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists.
  • The author and reviewer should in no case be affiliated with the same institution! Responsibility for the implementation of this requirement rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
  • In our Journal double-blind review is practiced: reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least ten or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue. Members of the editorial board can also participate in the process of selecting reviewers in individual cases (at the request of the Editor-in-chief).
  • Duration of review – from 1 to 2 months.
  • Editor-in-chief never discloses the names of reviewers.
  • Editor-in-chief has the right to add the own comments to the expert remarks.
  • The Editorial board, in some cases, has the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if there is a good reason for this.
  • If the evaluation of the reviewers on some articles differs, the Editorial board makes a special decision: to accept/reject those articles or to assign new reviewers.
  • Rejected papers cannot be considered again. The Editorial board doesn't discuss with authors the reasons of manuscript rejection.

Guidelines for Reviewers

The following data must be presented in the review:

  • evaluation of originality and scientific novelty of the paper;
  • estimation of the correctness of quoting;
  • assessment of the correspondence between the paper content and the title;
  • conclusion about whether the author takes into account modern publications in the field of philosophical problem to which the paper is devoted;
  • final conclusion on whether the paper is accepted for publication, needs follow-up revision or is rejected;
  • description (if any) of those manuscript deficiencies that are not the subject of scientific discussion and must be corrected by the author.

Approximate Structure of the Review

1. General characteristics of the content:

  • relevance of the topic;
  • novelty;
  • methodological specificity;
  • clarity and unambiguity of conclusions, their adequacy to the main goals of the paper.

2. The quality of the article:

  • availability of the paper's scientific apparatus (abstract, bibliography, reference system, etc.);
  • awareness of the author (authors) about the current state of the issue in the area under study (references to new periodic and thematic literature, etc.).

3. Remarks on the peculiarities of the article text.

4. The general conclusion.

5. Recommendations:

  • to publish the paper in the presented form;
  • to finalize the paper taking into account the comments (general or specific);
  • inadvisability (impossibility) of publication of the presented paper.

6. Surname, initials, position, scientific degree, scholarly title of reviewer.

7. Date of signing the review.