Peer review

  • The “Akademos” journal applies the procedure of double-anonymous peer review, meant to ensure the objective assessment of the manuscripts in terms of originality and quality of the  research conducted.

  • The editor is responsible for organising the peer review of each article on the basis of the collegiality criterion. In this context, for each article, two independent reviewers are selected for each article from the journal’s database of experts, and the manuscript is sent to them electronically.

  • The editor ensures the anonymity of the review: the authors do not know the identity of the experts, and the experts do not know the identity of the authors.

  • Although the names of the reviewers are not disclosed, their comments are sent to the authors by the editor for consideration.

  • Based on objective and competent reviews, the reviewers help both the editor to make the correct editorial decisions and the authors to improve the quality of the articles.

  • The reviewers will be required to thoroughly evaluate the manuscripts, thus contributing to the highest scientific quality of each one and of the journal as a whole.

  • An article is accepted if both reviewers give a positive feedback. If the two reviewers have differing opinions on the article in question, a third reviewer is appointed. If both reviewers provide a negative feedback, the article is rejected.

  • The author of the rejected article has the right to propose for publication other articles or an improved version of the original manuscript in the next issue of the journal.

  • For a complex evaluation, the reviewers` file has been developed. It enables reviewers to assess the manuscript against all standard criteria applicable to a scientific article.

  • Thus, the reviewers will state and substantiate their position on a series of formal criteria (the structure appropriate to a scientific article, the style of expression, the graphic presentation etc.), as well as on the scientific quality of the article, its original character, the used bibliographic sources. The expert will draw attention to the scientific errors committed by the author, will identify relevant bibliographic sources that the author should consider.

  • Each manuscript submitted to the editorial office will be treated as a confidential document. The reviewers will preserve the confidentiality of the scientific results and ideas from the manuscripts they examine and will not use them in their own interest. Note on the use of AI: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts to generative artificial intelligence tools or using such tools to draft reviews. For full details, please refer to the Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Peer-Review Process in the Publication Ethics section.

  • The reviewers must recuse themselves from the review process if they have a conflict of interest involving the author resulting from competitive relationships, collaboration and so on.

  • The editor and reviewers have the right to reject, without reviewing, articles in which they have found plagiarized and self-plagiarized ideas or which do not comply with the technical requirements set out in the “Instructions for Authors” guidelines.