Peer Review

The peer-review procedure aims to increase the scientific quality of published papers by:

- Selecting for publication only those papers which are worthy and relevant for the topic and research directions of the journal;

- Rejecting the papers which are not appropriate in terms of quality or relevant for the journal’s profile;

- Increasing the individual quality of published articles, following their critical assessment by independent specialists.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Board to determine whether they fit the journal’s aims and scope and meet basic academic and formatting standards. This stage involves an initial evaluation of manuscripts by the editorial board members to identify and select papers that align with the journal’s scientific focus. The evaluation is conducted on two dimensions:

Content: The paper addresses a topic within the field of philosophy, is original, has substantial scientific content, and contains no major logical or scientific deficiencies.

Form: The paper adheres to the journal’s house style and includes all mandatory elements (e.g., keywords, abstract).

Submissions that do not comply with these requirements may be rejected without external review. All papers received are assigned a number, which will be used throughout the procedure, so as to secure the impartiality and the confidentially of the review procedure. In maximum seven days, the author will receive a confirmation message, with information regarding the peer-review process. During this stage, the editorial board verifies that the author sent an unpublished paper or a paper that is not reviewed by another Romanian and foreign academic journal and checks if the paper respects the provisions of the Romanian Law (206/2004) regarding the good conduct in scientific research.

Expert Peer-Review
Expert peer-review is conducted by two reviewers who are members of the Romanian and international scientific community and are specialists in the specific area of the submitted paper. Reviewers are selected from among collaborators who have agreed to participate in the peer-review process.

The review is carried out using a standard peer-review form, which is provided to the reviewers along with the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the paper within an agreed timeframe, considering the following criteria:

- originality and relevance of the topic

- scientific and philosophical rigor

- clarity of argumentation

- adequacy of methodology (where applicable)

- engagement with relevant literature

- overall contribution to the field of philosophy

Reviewers will not participate in the peer-review process if they cannot complete the evaluation within the given timeframe or if they detect any conflict of interest with the author(s) of the paper.

The expert peer-review concludes with the reviewers providing specific comments regarding the form and content of the manuscript and assigning one of the following recommendations:

  • Accepted for publication without changes.
  • Accepted for publication, subject to specific changes.
  • Rejected.

If there are major discrepancies between the recommendations of the two reviewers, the editorial board will appoint a third expert reviewer. The author will be provided with the reviewers’ recommendations while maintaining full confidentiality between the author(s) and the reviewers.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are required to:

  • revise their manuscript by reviewer comments

  • submit a response document explaining how the comments were addressed

Revised manuscripts may be sent again to reviewers for further evaluation.

After the author resubmits the revised manuscript, it will be sent back to the same reviewers, who will assess its suitability for publication. The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the review process within 3–6 months, although this may vary depending on reviewer availability.

Ethical Standards

All participants in the peer review process (authors, reviewers, editors) are expected to adhere to high standards of academic integrity and confidentiality.