Editorial Policy and Ethics

Journal policies provided below are based on recommendations on ethics of academic publications by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), Elsevier and Scopus.

Each participant engaged in the process of getting the materials prepared to be published in the journal (authors, the Editorial board, peer reviewers and publishers) should follow the standards of journal policies. In cases of malpractice, the Editorial board will follow the instructions of COPE.

 

Common policies

  1. The Editorial board strives to constantly improve the journal and has processes in place to assure the quality of the materials published.
  2. The journal accepts only manuscripts of original work, that have not been published before in whole or in part in other journals; the journal also accepts previously unpublished translations (license provided) and reviews of academic publications or significant academic and sociocultural events.
  3. Opinions expressed in the papers published in the journal do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial board.
  4. All papers submitted to the Editorial board are double-blind peer-reviewed by two experts. The results of peer-review process are fixed in a special review form filled in by a peer reviewer.

 

Editorial board

  1. The Editorial board's decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based on the paper's importance and originality only, without discrimination of authors on any grounds.
  2. The Editorial board guarantees that double-blind peer-review of any paper is conducted on fair and unbiased terms, confidentially and in a timely manner.
  3. The Editorial board guarantees that materials, submitted to the the journal by the members of the Editorial board, are double-blind peer-reviewed as well as any other material.
  4. The Editorial board monitors data fabrication and plagiarism in cases of suspected misconduct.
  5. The Editorial board ensures that appropriate peer reviewers are selected for submissions as well as the peer-review network is extended and internationalized regularly.
  6. The Editorial board informs authors about the results of the peer-review process in the course of 2 months after the submission to peer reviewers.
  7. The Editorial board follows the instructions of COPE in cases of any conflict situations.

 

Authors

  1. Authors guarantee that all submitted materials include no plagiarism or fabrication of information as well as are consistent with academic integrity and clarity.
  2. Authors acknowledge their co-authors (if any) and contributors of the research process as well as the zones of their responsibility in line with their contribution in the research development.
  3. Authors should design and format their materials submitted to the journal according to the requirements published on the journal’s online platform.
  4. Authors guarantee that the material submitted to Topos is not under review in other journals.
  5. By submitting a paper to the journal authors allow the journal to publish their materials, the copyright is held by authors without restrictions. In case of republishing of the material in another journal the author provides a reference to the first publication of the material in Journal for philosophy and cultural studies Topos.
  6. Authors are fully responsible for the opinions and assessments expressed in their papers.

 

Peer reviewers

  1. Peer reviewers only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
  2. Peer reviewers respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review in the course of all staged of the peer-review process.
  3. Peer reviewers should not use information during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's private advantage or to disadvantage or discredit of the author under review.
  4. Peer reviewers declare all potential conflicting interests, especially in cases when the author's identity was revealed or peer reviewer's professional or private interests intersect with those of the author under review. In case of conflicting interests, the peer reviewer should decline to review.
  5. Peer reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments to the author under review.