Peer Review Policy
The journal “Actual Problems of Mind” conducts expert evaluation according to the double-blind peer review model via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. As a rule, each manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers. Where necessary, the Editorial Office may invite additional experts from the scholarly community.
Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation
- relevance to the aims, thematic scope, and scholarly focus of the journal;
- compliance with generally accepted academic standards of originality, scholarly significance, argumentative rigor, and methodological soundness;
- compliance with the journal’s editorial policies (ethical standards, formatting requirements, data/AI policies, etc.).
Stages of the Peer Review Process
Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript (desk review). At this stage, the Editorial Office verifies:
- compliance with the journal’s scope and basic formal requirements;
- absence of obvious signs of academic misconduct (including plagiarism);
- overall suitability of the manuscript for peer review (scholarly level, clarity of structure, compliance with academic standards).
As a result of the initial screening, the manuscript may be:
- sent for peer review;
- returned to the author(s) for technical revision;
- rejected at the editorial stage with a brief justification (desk reject) if it clearly does not meet the journal’s scope or minimum standards.
Peer Review
The manuscript is sent to two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Where necessary, the Editorial Office may request an additional review or expert consultation. At each stage, the author(s) receive reasoned and constructive feedback regarding decisions concerning the manuscript.
Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief (or Managing Editor) prepares a recommendation based on the reviewers’ reports. The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editorial Office. The journal may: accept the manuscript; request revisions (minor or major); or reject the manuscript.
Confidentiality and Integrity
All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not: distribute the manuscript or any part thereof; use ideas or materials from the manuscript prior to publication; disclose the fact of reviewing or the content of communication with the Editorial Office.
Guidelines for Reviewers
Reviewers are required to:
- promptly inform the Editorial Office of any conflicts of interest (personal, professional, institutional, financial, etc.);
- decline to review if the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or cannot be evaluated properly;
- adhere to principles of impartiality, professionalism, and academic ethics.
Peer review involves scientifically grounded, rational, and respectful critique aimed at providing an objective assessment of the manuscript’s quality and assisting the author(s) in improving the text. If a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct, they must notify the Editorial Office and, where possible, provide supporting evidence.
The reviewer evaluates, inter alia: the originality and scholarly significance of the work; its relevance to the journal’s scope; methodological soundness; the presence of original scholarly contribution (for the relevant type of article); logical and structural coherence; correspondence between title and content; validity of conclusions and their connection to the stated objectives; and proper engagement with sources and accuracy of citation.
Stylistic or grammatical errors of moderate extent that do not diminish the scholarly value of the manuscript are not in themselves grounds for rejection, though reviewers should indicate them in their comments.
The reviewer formulates a recommendation in one of the following forms:
- accept without revision;
- accept subject to revision (with specific comments);
- reject (with reasoned justification).
Reviewer comments must be clear, specific, and comprehensible, preferably with references to relevant sections of the manuscript. Evaluative judgments must be based on scholarly arguments and may not rely on political, national, religious, or other biases.
Revision and Re-Review
If a manuscript may be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the author(s) with reviewers’ comments and, where appropriate, editorial recommendations. The author(s) must submit a revised version of the manuscript, a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments, and a version of the text with highlighted changes. The Managing Editor evaluates the adequacy of revisions and may either make a decision independently or send the manuscript for a second round of peer review to assess compliance with previous recommendations. As a rule, the journal allows no more than two rounds of review for a single manuscript.
Timeframe
The overall peer review process generally does not exceed 3 months from the date the manuscript is assigned to reviewers (including revisions and re-evaluation).
Appeals
Author(s) have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a significant procedural error, conflict of interest, bias, or misinterpretation of the manuscript occurred during the review or decision-making process. An appeal is not considered a resubmission of the manuscript and will not be reviewed solely on the basis of disagreement with a reviewer’s evaluation.
An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor and must include:
- identification of the manuscript (title, author(s), date of decision);
- a clear description of the grounds for appeal (procedural irregularities, conflict of interest, etc.);
- a reasoned response to the key reviewer comments (where relevant), with references to specific sections of the manuscript.
The appeal is considered by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Editorial Board. Where necessary, the Editorial Office may:
- invite an additional independent reviewer;
- initiate a re-evaluation of the manuscript;
- uphold the original decision with a reasoned explanation.
The decision resulting from the appeal process is final.
