Publication Ethics
The work of editorial board of the journal “Philosophy of Religion: Analytic Researches” is guided by the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Guidance on the ethics of scientific publications of Elsevier. All those involved in the publication process are required to conform to the standards laid down in these recommendations.
“Philosophy of Religion: Analytic Researches” is an open access journal, which means that all issues of the journal are freely available in electronic form from the journal’s website. Authors are not charged for the processing and publication of their articles in the journal.
The author of a submitted article owns all the rights on its content. No one involved in the publication process may use the content of a submitted article for their own personal purposes.
Authors:
1.1. Guarantee that submitted articles are not under consideration by another journal and that they have not been published previously.
1.2. Their submitted articles should be outcomes of original scholarly research. Where parts of the article are taken from the work of other researchers, this must be stated outright, and a reference made to that other work in the way stated in the submission guidelines.
1.3. Are responsible for both intentional and unintentional plagiarism. It is totally forbidden to use unauthorized borrowings and reproductions (including graphics, primary data etc.). Parts borrowed with the consent of the copyright holder must be presented in the right form and accompanied by an appropriate reference.
1.4. Are responsible for providing information about the sources of financial support for a project, the results of which are presented in their article, and for indicating the persons who have contributed to the research (including co-authors).
1.5. When authors discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in submitted articles, they are obliged promptly to notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with the editors in correcting submitted papers.
The Editorial board:
2.1. Is responsible for making decisions on submitted articles. The editorial board accepts or rejects submitted articles solely on the basis of the academic quality and value of the article, its significance for the given branch of learning and the quality of the presentation of the material, as well as by the current legislation regarding libel, copyright infringement or plagiarism.
2.2. Is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information about submitted articles and their authors. Access to this information is provided only to those who are directly involved in the publication process. The editor has no right to use any unpublished materials contained in the submitted papers in their own research without the written consent of the author.
2.3. Must agree the final version of the article with the author before printing.
2.4. Must evaluate submitted articles solely on the basis of their intellectual level and academic originality, regardless of the race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political views and other personal characteristics of the author.
2.5. Guarantees that submitted papers are peer-reviewed (double-blind).
2.6. The Editor should recuse himself from reviewing manuscripts (i.e. ask a co-editor, assistant editor, or other member of the editorial board to replace them in review process) if there is a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or relationship with any of the authors, companies, or organizations associated with the submitted paper.
Reviewers:
3.1. Shall undertake to perform the procedure of anonymous (“double blind”) review.
3.2. Must not disclose information about articles submitted for review to persons not involved in the publication process.
3.3. Must respect the author’s copyright and must not under any circumstances use submitted papers or parts thereof for their own purposes.
3.4. Must review papers within the deadlines set by the editorial board of the journal. If the reviewer finds that it is not possible to complete their review within the specified time or feels insufficiently qualified to evaluate the research presented in the paper, the reviewer must immediately notify the editorial staff.
3.5. Are not paid for their work.
3.6. Must be totally objective. The only criterion in assessing the article is its academic importance. Decisions must not be based on any personal preferences of the reviewer. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly, supporting them with arguments. If a reviewer discovers any conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editorial staff without completing the review.
3.7. Must draw attention to the good aspects of the submitted article which may be considered as grounds for accepting it, and then provide criticisms and comments. The reviewer’s decision will result from weighing the good aspects of the article against its deficiencies. There are four possible decisions for a reviewer: “accept”, “accept with corrections”, “accept with substantial changes”, “reject”. Reviewers must inform the editorial board of similarities between a submitted article and other articles known to them.
Competing Interests:
4.1. All those involved in reviewing and publishing any article submitted for publication must disclose any personal interests directly or indirectly related to the work, or any apparent violation of generally accepted ethical norms. Disclosure of interests makes the process completely transparent and helps readers to form their own judgment about any possible bias in the article.
4.2. The Editorial Team organizes the reviewing process in a way that excludes any conflict of interest, arising from personal preferences, competition, partnership or any other relations between the author and any companies, organizations or individuals involved in the reviewing process.
4.3. The Editorial Team undertakes to publish any clarifications, retractions and apologies required by the discovery of any conflicts of interest, and also to publish any necessary corrections needed for previously published articles.
Withdrawing the article from the publication process:
5.1. If the author of a submitted article is found to have infringed professional ethical codes by submitting simultaneously to more than one journal, or falsely claiming authorship of the article, or by plagiarism, the editorial team has the authority to withdraw the article from the publication process.
5.2. Similarly, the editorial team may seek the deletion from all citation databases and electronic resources in which the journal is indexed, of the citation of any published article in the submission of which the author is found to have violated such professional ethical codes.