Peer review process

All research articles submitted to E-LOGOS – Electronic Journal for Philosophy are subject to peer review before a final publication decision is made.

After submission, the manuscript is first assessed by the Editor or another designated member of the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the scope of the journal and meets the journal's basic academic and formal requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are normally sent to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s) and must not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence or impartiality of the review. Members of the Editorial Board may not act as reviewers where their involvement could create a conflict of interest.

E-LOGOS uses a double-anonymous peer-review process. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identity. The editorial team takes reasonable steps to preserve anonymity throughout the review process.

Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts and all information obtained through the peer-review process as confidential and to evaluate submissions objectively, fairly, and solely on their academic merits.

Reviewers assess, as appropriate, the manuscript's originality, scholarly significance, methodological and argumentative quality, clarity, relevance to the journal's scope, use of sources, and overall suitability for publication. Review reports should identify substantive strengths and weaknesses and, where appropriate, provide constructive recommendations for revision.

Reviewers normally recommend one of the following outcomes:

1. Accept;
2. Accept subject to revisions / request revisions and re-evaluation;
3. Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision on publication rests with the Editor, who considers the reviewers' reports, the quality and relevance of the manuscript, compliance with the journal's editorial policies, and the scope of E-LOGOS. Authors are informed of the editorial decision and normally receive the reviewers' comments relevant to the revision or rejection of the manuscript.

Where reviewers provide substantially conflicting assessments, the Editor may seek an additional independent review before reaching a decision.

Authors who are invited to revise a manuscript are expected to address the reviewers' and Editor's comments and to provide an appropriate response to the requested changes. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and must withdraw from handling or reviewing a manuscript where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Submissions involving an Editor, Editorial Board member, or another person closely connected with the journal are handled by an independent editor and are subject to the same peer-review standards as other submissions.

The journal seeks to ensure that peer review is conducted impartially, confidentially, constructively, and within a reasonable timeframe.