About the Journal

EDITORIAL POLICIES

 

Focus and Scope

Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought) is a leading philosophical magazine in Ukraine. It exists since 1927 as the organ of the most authoritative Ukrainian research institution in the field of philosophy – Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (in the Soviet period – Academy of Sciences of Ukr.SSR).

We use to publish (1) high-quality and original Academic papers in philosophy, independent of the topic field, philosophizing style and methodological priorities; (2) materials of philosophical discussions; (3) reviews of books, descriptions of books and specially ordered critical considerations.

The works representing the “points of growth” of the current philosophic knowledge, having high heuristic potential, initiating and maintaining new trends and methods of research make our journal priority.

 

Peer Review Process

  1. The Editorial Board takes a decision concerning the articles publishing only after completing the procedure of their anonymous reviewing.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief determines whether the articles, offered the Editorial Board for consideration, correspond to scientific specialization of the journal; he chooses two reviewers for each article among the leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists.
  3. We use a “double blind reviewing”: the reviewers do not know who is the author; the authors, in turn, do not know their reviewers.
  4. The Editorial Board informs authors about the article adoption for consideration in 2-days term. An Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board sends articles to reviewers and receives the texts of reviews from them.
    1. The reviewing term is about 2 months.
    2. The reviewer notes:
      • article originality and scientific novelty;
      • correctness of citing;
      • correspondence between the article’s content and title;
      • whether the author takes into account the most current publications in the field of philosophic knowledge, presented in the article;

      the reviewer also formulates:

      • the final conclusion concerning the article passing for press, its sending for revision or rejection.
      • as well as point those article shortcomings (if available) that, in his/her opinion, are not subjects of discussion and should be corrected by the author.
    3. The revised variant of the article is sent for consideration by the same reviewers. The second reviewing continues for about two months.
    4. The Editor-in-Chief never spreads the names of reviewers.
    5. The reviewers’ conclusions being positive is the main reason for the paper passing to press. But the final decision is taken by the Editorial Board. It has the right not to agree with reviewers’ decisions having good ground for this.
    6. If the reviewers’ disagree in their opinion about the article, the Editorial Board takes a special decision: to take/to reject the article or to appoint other reviewers.
    7. The paper being rejected, the Editorial Board informs the author, sending an e-mail letter with the rejection motives.
    8. The rejected papers cannot be considered again. The Editorial board does not discuss the article rejection reasons with authors.

 

Open Access Policy

The journal gives open access to all published materials a year after their publication.

 

Ethical Principles of Papers Reviewing and Editing

Relations between authors, Editorial Board and reviewers in our journal are based on the principles of academic good will, objective appraisals and priority of scientific quality. We follow the principles of Code of Conduct for Editors, created by Committee of Publication Ethics, in particular.

Fair Play

Manuscripts are to be appraised basing on their scientific quality, irrespective of the race, ethnic belonging, gender, sexual orientation, religious convictions, citizenship or political views of the author.

Exclusion of the Plagiarism, Slanders and Infringement of the Copyright

Our journal rejects any materials, which authors do not meet the demands on the exclusion of plagiarism, slanders and copyright infringement.

Obligations of Editors

Editor-in-Chief follows the policy of the journal Editorial Board and talk things over with other editors and reviewers as to the decision on publication.

Editors

  • have every authority to reject / take the article, following the objective scientific criteria and reviewers’ conclusions;
  • they guarantee quality of materials they publish;
  • they have to reveal any conflicts of interests;
  • they have to secure the confidence of information concerning the presented manuscripts, to defend free scientific self-expression.

Having suspicions as to authenticity, originality or ethic correctness of the article, the editor adjourns its promulgation up to final removal of doubts. The editors may not use unpublished materials (presented for consideration) in their own research without a written consent of authors.

Obligations of Authors

Authors have to be sure that their works are really original;

  • to make considerable contribution to the research (if there are several authors of the article);
  • to confirm that the manuscript has not bee published before in other place and is not submitted for consideration in other edition;
  • to determine all source used in the work over the manuscript;
  • the authors have to inform about any essential conflicts of interests that can affect the appraisal of their manuscripts.

Authors may not use or disclose information obtained unofficially (in conversations, correspondence or discussion with the third persons) without a written permission from the source. Submitting the article for consideration by the Editorial Board, the authors agree that in the year and a half all readers will have free access to their work (in case of its printed promulgation) on the journal site.

Obligations of Responsibilities

The reviewers have:

  • to inform the Editorial Board about any conflicts of interests that can determine their conclusions;
  • to keep in confidence information concerning the manuscript;
  • to be objective and constructive in their reviews.

Reviewers may not use unpublished materials, submitted for consideration by the Editorial Board, in their own research without a written consent of authors.