Ðóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2062,   Articles in work: 301 Declined articles: 777 
  • Issues
  • About the journal
  • Requirements for publication
  • Editorial collegium
  • Peer-review process
  • Policy of publication. Aims & Scope.
  • Article retraction
  • Ethics
  • Copyright & Licensing Policy
  • Editorial board
  • Open Access Policy
  • Open access publishing costs
  • Article Identification Policy
  • Plagiarism check policy
  • Digital archiving policy
  • Publication in 72 hours: How do we do it?
  • Editor-in-Chief's column
  • Question at hand
  • The lectern
  • Methodology of philosophical learning
  • Ontology: being and nihility
  • Spectrum of consciousness
  • Dialectics
  • Space and time
  • Matter and motion
  • Cycles and tides in the global world
  • The issues of holistic world
  • Fates and outlines of civilizations
  • Man and mankind
  • The new paradigm of science
  • Philosophy of knowledge
  • Frontiers and theories of knowledge
  • The rational and the irrational
  • The conscious and the unconscious
  • Tradition and innovation
  • Natural philosophy
  • Philosophy of language and communication
  • The torment of communication
  • Information and ideas
  • Connection of times
  • History of ideas and teachings
  • Philosophy of science
  • Picture of the world in natural science
  • Social philosophy
  • Political philosophy
  • Social dynamics
  • Characteristics of society
  • Philosophy of history
  • Philosophy of liberty
  • Ideology and psychology of the masses
  • Westerners and Slavophiles today
  • Self-consciousness and identity
  • National character and mentality
  • The dialogue of cultures
  • Axiology: values and relics
  • Value and truth
  • Meaning and silence
  • The history of humanitarian science
  • Philosophy of religion
  • Theological foundations of being
  • Audience with the expert
  • Religions and religious renaissance
  • Phenomenology
  • Hermeneutics
  • Structuralism
  • Philosophy of postmodernism
  • Philosophical anthropology
  • Mysteries of the human being
  • The science of psychoanalysis
  • Dasein of the human being
  • Philosophy of love
  • Philosophy of death
  • Reverence for life
  • Myths and modern mythologies
  • Spiritual and moral search
  • Ethics
  • Aesthetics
  • Philosophy and culture
  • Philosophy and art
  • Philosophy of technology
  • Philosophy of law
  • Philosophy of science and education
  • The humanitarian dictionary
  • On top of the wire
  • Translations of philosophy classics
  • The Conference
  • Controversy and debate
  • The Round Table
  • Essays on everyday life
  • Memory of the past
  • Editorial office compliments
  • Post-anniversary
  • The stream of books
  • In memoriam
  • Press-release
  • Monograph peer reviews
«Philosophical Thought»
Peer-review process

1. All submitted articles that meet the journal aims and scope are subject to external peer review to obtain an independent expert evaluation. Peer reviewers are experts on the subjects of the articles they review and have over the past three years the publications relevant to the journal scope.

2. The publisher sends the author the peer review copy or a reasoned rejection and also undertakes to provide the peer reviews copies to the RF Ministry of Science and Higher Education in case of receiving the Ministry's official request. The peer reviews originals are perpetually kept in the NB-Media archive.

3. Before the peer-review process, all submitted articles are automatically checked for plagiarism (Anti- Plagiarism System).

4. If the article successfully passed the anti-plagiarism checking, the editor-in-chief makes sure the compliance of the article with the journal aims and scope, as well as of the formal requirements, and then sends it for review to external peer reviewers who are experts in the same field of science. Our journal uses the double-blind peer reviewing – neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

5. Peer reviewers evaluate the articles on many criteria that are essential for providing a justified and objective decision to accept or to reject your article. In particular, peer reviewers have to respond to the following questions:
- Is the article topic relevant and compliant with the journal aims and scope?
- Does the text of the article correspond to the title?
- Is the article abstract clear and informative? Does the abstract allow us to understand the essence of the author's research and its results? (Quality of Abstract)
- Is the description of the research subject, its objectives, methodology, and main results clearly, accurately and informative? (Quality of Presenting)
- How high is the scientific novelty and value of the author's conclusions, as well as their logic, validity, and reliability? (Quality of Conclusions and Reasoning)
- Is there any elements of scientific reflection in the article under review including an analysis of the current state of the problem under study, the author's interpretation of the results with relation to other studies, etc.? (Quality of Discussion)
- Is the literature cited, as well as used sources, appropriate, relevant, and sufficient to solve the author's research scopes? (Quality of Literature Cited)
- Does the article comply with journal formatting requirements (e.g., proper structure, academic style, absence of factual and grammatical errors, etc.)? (Compliance with journal formatting requirements)
- Does the article give new knowledge? Is the article interesting for the journal audience and research community? (Scientific Value)

6. The administrator or the editorial staff, no later than seven days, notify the author that the article was received by the journal and sent for peer review. The peer-review deadlines depend on peer reviewers, but the publisher makes all his best to ensure that the author can get a piece of information about the fate of the article under review as soon as possible.

7. If the journal rejected the article for formal reasons or on the recommendation of peer reviewers, the author receives a message contains a reasoned refusal.

8. The article, once rejected by peer reviewers, is not allowed for new submitting and revision.

9. Successful peer-review evaluation of the article is not a guarantee of publication. To make the final judgment to accept the article for publishing, it is the right and duty of the Journal Editorial Board.

10. If the Journal Editorial Board, taking into account peer reviewers recommendations, accepts the article for publishing, the author receives a message concerns this decision and expected deadlines of publication.