Ðóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2065,   Articles in work: 293 Declined articles: 786 
  • Issues
  • About the journal
  • Requirements for publication
  • Editorial collegium
  • Peer-review process
  • Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it?
  • 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 in 24 hours: How do we do it?
Fast peer-review (without loss of quality) became possible thanks to digital (paperless) technologies and constant expansion of the Institute of reviewers cooperating with our publishing house.

When you submit your manuscript to our journal, you always specify the corresponding code of the scientific specialty. The personal profile of the reviewer also includes his code of scientific specialty.

In case of positive results of the automatic checking of submitted article to the level of originality (the AntiPlagiarism & AntiRewrite online services), the Chief Editor decides 'To send the new article for peer review.' This action means that the Chief Editor instructs our online system for mailing notifications automatically about the receipt of a new article to all peer-reviewers who have the corresponding code of scientific specialty.

If the peer reviewer wishes to give an opinion on your article, he takes your item in processing (other peer-reviewers no longer have access to your article) and must provide a review to the Chief Editor within 24 hours. Both the Editorial Board and the peer reviewers based on the fact that a qualifying specialist in the considered scientific problem is capable analyze in-depth the article and provide a reasonable decision within the above mentioned time. The section 'Peer-review process' gives you more details about the structure of the peer reviewer's conclusion.

Because the online system uses sole the codes of scientific specialties to identify articles and reviewers, we provide a guarantee of the implementation of the principle of 'double-blind' peer review.

Unfortunately, the peer review time may increase due to objective and subjective reasons (for example, the reviewers on vacation, lack of interest in the topic, etc.). Also, an increase in the peer-reviewing time occurs if the Editorial Board disagreed with the arguments of the peer reviewer, or the opinions of the peer reviewers are contrary. In this case, the article goes for additional expert evaluation to another peer reviewer. However, the Editorial Board does its best to let you know about your article's future as soon as possible.