Review process

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed.

The review period lasts from 4 to 8 weeks.

The editors reserve the right not to consider articles that:

  • do not meet the requirements for design and scientific style of presentation of the material;
  • do not have scientific novelty and practical significance;
  • do not correspond to the subject of the journal;
  • Are made using an automatic computer translator;
  • Are NOT edited (contain grammatical and stylistic errors);
  • violate the ethics of scientific research, in particular, if plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication of research results, or duplication of publication (duplicate publication) are found in the article.

Confidentiality. The editors and the editorial board do not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript (author (s), subject, text, etc.) to anyone other than the corresponding author, (potential) reviewers, and the publisher, if necessary.

Question of authorship. When submitting materials for publication in a journal, the authors agree that if materials are accepted for publication, the latter may be placed in electronic databases. In the text of the work itself, the sources of external information should be fully presented - in the form of lists of sources and literature (including personal previously published works of the authors). Authors are required to properly draw borrowings in the form of citations or references. Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable.

 

Peer Review Process

Basic Rules

  • 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 (or Deputy Chief Editor) who appoints for each article two (sometimes three) reviewers 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 and Deputy Chief Editor.
  • In our Journal practiced double-blind review: reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least two 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 or in the article review process in individual cases (at the request of the Editor-in-chief or Deputy Chief Editor). 2 reviewers take part in the  process of reviewing
  • Duration of review – up to two months.
  • Editor-in-chief and Deputy Chief Editor never disclose the names of reviewers.
  • Editor-in-chief and Deputy Chief Editor have 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 are diverging, the Editorial board takes a special decision: to accept/reject those articles or to assign new reviewers.
  • Rejected papers may not be considered again. The Editorial board does not discuss with authors about the reasons of manuscript rejection.

Review procedure

  1. After receiving the manuscript, the editorial board within two days informs the author about acceptance of his article for consideration.
  2. The Editor-in-chief (or Deputy Chief Editor) sends manuscripts to reviewers and receives text reviews from them.
  3. The Editor-in-chief (or Deputy Chief Editor) makes a list of reviewers’ remarks and sends it to the author.
  4. The revised paper shall be submitted for consideration of the previous experts. Reconsideration of the paper lasts up to two months.
  5. If the conclusions of the reviewers are positive, this is one of the key reasons to accept the paper for publication.
  6. If the paper is rejected, the editorial office informs the author by e-mail about the reasons for the refusal.

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.

Also, reviewers can use the standard review form as an example.