SUBMISSIONS AUTHOR GUIDELINES
• The Journal publishes high-quality research papers which
a) contain academic novelty;
b) refer to proper contemporary publications;
c) are up to the academic priorities of the journal;
d) refer to original texts of the quoted classical sources.
• We do not charge authors for publication fees.
SUBMISSION PREPARATION CHECKLIST
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
• The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
• The submission file is in Open Office, Microsoft Word or RTF document file format.
• Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
• The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
• If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in ensuring a blind review been followed.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
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 two (sometimes three) reviewers among leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists.
• 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 ten or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
• Within two days the Editor in chief assistants inform the author of the paper acceptance for consideration, sends the article to reviewers and gets them to text reviews.
• Duration of review – up to two months.
• A review examines the following:
o originality and scientific novelty of article;
o correct citation;
o correspondence between the paper content and the title;
o consideration of the latest publications in the area of study, covered by the paper.
o A review includes final decision on whether the paper is accepted for publication, needs follow-up revision or rejected.
o Reviewers also describe the shortcomings in the paper which, being not subject to scientific discussion, may be corrected by the authors.
• Editor in chief has the right to add the own comments to the expert remarks.
• The revised paper shall be submitted for consideration of the previous experts. Reconsideration of the paper lasts up to two months.
• Editor in Chief never disclose the names of reviewers.
• If all reviewers' conclusions are positive/negative, it is usually the main reason for making the article for publication / rejection. But the Editorial board, in some cases, have the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if will be good reason for this.
• If the evaluation of the reviewers on some articles diverging, the Editorial board takes a special decision: accepted / reject those articles or assign new reviewers.
• If an article is rejected, the Editor in chief assistants inform the author via e-mail of the reasons for the refusal.
• Rejected articles may not be considered again. The Editorial board not discussing with authors about the reasons of articles’ rejection.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Relationships between authors, editors and reviewers in our journal are based on academic benevolence, objectivity of ratings and priority of scientific quality. We are following the principles of Code of Conduct for Editors as defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
FAIR PLAY
Manuscripts shall be evaluated for their scientific quality, regardless of author’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality or political opinions.
ELIMINATION OF THE PLAGIARISM, LIBEL AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Our journal rejects any material that breaks legal requirements regarding plagiarism, libel and copyright infringement.
EDITORS RESPONSIBILITIES
The editor-in-chief shall be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and consults with other editors or reviewers about the decision to publish.
Editors
• have full authority to reject / accept the article, guided by objective scientific criteria and findings reviewers;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• must disclose any conflicts of interest; keep information pertaining to submitted manuscripts confidential;
• champion freedom of scientific expression;
If editors suspect the authenticity, originality or ethical correctness of an article, publication of the last is delayed until any doubt is clarified.
Unpublished materials from submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Authors must:
• ensure that they have written truly original works;
• have significant contribution to the research (if a paper has several authors);
• guarantee obtained permission for use of copyrighted materials;
• certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
• identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript;
• disclose in their manuscript any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the assessment of their manuscript;
Information obtained by authors privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written, permission from the source.
By submitting an article to the editorial board, the authors agree that (in the case of publication in the paper version «Philosophy and Humanism») their text will be after eighteen months automatically published in the online version of the journal (under open access).
REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES
Reviewer must:
• notify Editorial staff of any conflicts of interest that may determine their findings;
• keep information pertaining to the manuscript confidential;
• be objective and constructive in their reviews.
Unpublished materials from submitted manuscript must not be used in reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author.
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 two (sometimes three) reviewers among leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists.
• 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 ten or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
• Within two days the Editor in chief assistants inform the author of the paper acceptance for consideration. Editor in chief personally sends the article to reviewers and gets them to text reviews.
• Duration of review – up to two months.
• A review examines the following:
o originality and scientific novelty of article;
o correct citation;
o correspondence between the paper content and the title;
o consideration of the latest publications in the area of study, covered by the paper.
o A review includes final decision on whether the paper is accepted for publication, needs follow-up revision or rejected.
o Reviewers also describe the shortcomings in the paper which, being not subject to scientific discussion, may be corrected by the authors.
• Editor in chief has the right to add the own comments to the expert remarks.
• The revised paper shall be submitted for consideration of the previous experts. Reconsideration of the paper lasts up to two months.
• Editor in Chief never disclose the names of reviewers.
• If all reviewers' conclusions are positive/negative, it is usually the main reason for making the article for publication / rejection. But the Editorial board, in some cases, have the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if will be good reason for this.
• If the evaluation of the reviewers on some articles diverging, the Editorial board takes a special decision: accepted / reject those articles or assign new reviewers.
• If an article is rejected, the Editor in chief assistants inform the author via e-mail of the reasons for the refusal.
Rejected articles may not be considered again. The Editorial board not discussing with authors about the reasons of articles’ rejection.
FOR AUTORS
• The Journal publishes high-quality research papers which
a) contain academic novelty;
b) refer to proper contemporary publications;
c) are up to the academic priorities of the journal;
d) refer to original texts of the quoted classical sources.
• We do not charge authors for publication fees.
SUBMISSION PREPARATION CHECKLIST
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
• The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
• The submission file is in Open Office, Microsoft Word or RTF document file format.
• Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
• The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
• If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in ensuring a blind review been followed.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
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 two (sometimes three) reviewers among leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists.
• 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 ten or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
• Within two days the Editor in chief assistants inform the author of the paper acceptance for consideration, sends the article to reviewers and gets them to text reviews.
• Duration of review – up to two months.
• A review examines the following:
o originality and scientific novelty of article;
o correct citation;
o correspondence between the paper content and the title;
o consideration of the latest publications in the area of study, covered by the paper.
o A review includes final decision on whether the paper is accepted for publication, needs follow-up revision or rejected.
o Reviewers also describe the shortcomings in the paper which, being not subject to scientific discussion, may be corrected by the authors.
• Editor in chief has the right to add the own comments to the expert remarks.
• The revised paper shall be submitted for consideration of the previous experts. Reconsideration of the paper lasts up to two months.
• Editor in Chief never disclose the names of reviewers.
• If all reviewers' conclusions are positive/negative, it is usually the main reason for making the article for publication / rejection. But the Editorial board, in some cases, have the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if will be good reason for this.
• If the evaluation of the reviewers on some articles diverging, the Editorial board takes a special decision: accepted / reject those articles or assign new reviewers.
• If an article is rejected, the Editor in chief assistants inform the author via e-mail of the reasons for the refusal.
• Rejected articles may not be considered again. The Editorial board not discussing with authors about the reasons of articles’ rejection.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Relationships between authors, editors and reviewers in our journal are based on academic benevolence, objectivity of ratings and priority of scientific quality. We are following the principles of Code of Conduct for Editors as defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
FAIR PLAY
Manuscripts shall be evaluated for their scientific quality, regardless of author’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality or political opinions.
ELIMINATION OF THE PLAGIARISM, LIBEL AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Our journal rejects any material that breaks legal requirements regarding plagiarism, libel and copyright infringement.
EDITORS RESPONSIBILITIES
The editor-in-chief shall be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and consults with other editors or reviewers about the decision to publish.
Editors
• have full authority to reject / accept the article, guided by objective scientific criteria and findings reviewers;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• must disclose any conflicts of interest; keep information pertaining to submitted manuscripts confidential;
• champion freedom of scientific expression;
If editors suspect the authenticity, originality or ethical correctness of an article, publication of the last is delayed until any doubt is clarified.
Unpublished materials from submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Authors must:
• ensure that they have written truly original works;
• have significant contribution to the research (if a paper has several authors);
• guarantee obtained permission for use of copyrighted materials;
• certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
• identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript;
• disclose in their manuscript any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the assessment of their manuscript;
Information obtained by authors privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written, permission from the source.
By submitting an article to the editorial board, the authors agree that (in the case of publication in the paper version «Philosophy and Humanism») their text will be after eighteen months automatically published in the online version of the journal (under open access).
REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES
Reviewer must:
• notify Editorial staff of any conflicts of interest that may determine their findings;
• keep information pertaining to the manuscript confidential;
• be objective and constructive in their reviews.
Unpublished materials from submitted manuscript must not be used in reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author.
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 two (sometimes three) reviewers among leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists.
• 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 ten or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
• Within two days the Editor in chief assistants inform the author of the paper acceptance for consideration. Editor in chief personally sends the article to reviewers and gets them to text reviews.
• Duration of review – up to two months.
• A review examines the following:
o originality and scientific novelty of article;
o correct citation;
o correspondence between the paper content and the title;
o consideration of the latest publications in the area of study, covered by the paper.
o A review includes final decision on whether the paper is accepted for publication, needs follow-up revision or rejected.
o Reviewers also describe the shortcomings in the paper which, being not subject to scientific discussion, may be corrected by the authors.
• Editor in chief has the right to add the own comments to the expert remarks.
• The revised paper shall be submitted for consideration of the previous experts. Reconsideration of the paper lasts up to two months.
• Editor in Chief never disclose the names of reviewers.
• If all reviewers' conclusions are positive/negative, it is usually the main reason for making the article for publication / rejection. But the Editorial board, in some cases, have the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if will be good reason for this.
• If the evaluation of the reviewers on some articles diverging, the Editorial board takes a special decision: accepted / reject those articles or assign new reviewers.
• If an article is rejected, the Editor in chief assistants inform the author via e-mail of the reasons for the refusal.
Rejected articles may not be considered again. The Editorial board not discussing with authors about the reasons of articles’ rejection.