The editorial board requests that reviewers adopt the following principles of peer review:
- reviewing is based on mutual respect of the author and reviewer as equal participants of the scientific process;
- the main purpose of the review is to evaluate the scientific value of the the manuscript, whether it complies with general scientific standards, and whether it contributes to discussions of the journal‘s themes;
- the corrections suggested by the reviewers should aim to improve the manuscript in these respects;
- comments and recommendations should be formulated in a helpful, constructive, and easily understandable manner;
- the reviewer is obligated not to share or divulge the contents of the article until it is published.
Reviewers should decline to review the manuscript in case of conflict of interests that may arise from close professional or personal relations to any of the authors, from competition in their field of research, or from institutional and funding arrangements.
In assessing the content of the article, you should pay attention to the following points:
- if a paper presents and interprets empirical data, the methodology guiding inferences is of paramount importance; the value of these papers consists mainly in the novelty of the findings which needs to be assessed;
- if a paper explores the significance a cultural phenomenon or advances a theoretical discussion in philosophy and cultural studies, its values consists mainly in the reach and persuasiveness of the argument; such papers should be judged as to whether they are likely to provoke further intellectual exchange.
The whole process of peer review proceeds through the E-submission system, in which the reviewer needs to register. Peer-review is “single-blind”, i.e., the author of the article doesn't know the reviewer's identity.
Reviewing is carried out on a voluntary basis upon invitation by the journal editors. We welcome expressions of interest if you wish to become a reviewer for our journal: firstname.lastname@example.org
Peer review procedure
- After evaluating the article for compliance with journal requirements, the editors appoint two or more scientific reviewers. A peer-reviewing invitation will be sent to your e-mail.
- We kindly ask you to confirm your agreement to write a review, replying to the e-mail indicated in the letter.
- The standard period for the preparation of a review is two weeks. If you need more time, please, contact the editorial office.
- The review of the article and a journal template for assessments and comments form the basis for one of the following recommendations:
- send for revision — after the author completes the article, it is sent for re-review;
- When resubmitting a revised article, the author should indicate how the reviewers’ suggestions were integrated, including an explanation why other suggestions were not taken up.
- For discussion with author and editor use the field “Discussion” on the article page.
- After the review of the resubmission the process ends with the acceptance or rejection of the paper.