Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Every text offered to the journal Filosofie dnes is reviewed by at least two experts, and the decision to accept or reject the text is strictly based on their recommendations. The review process is anonymous on both sides; that is, reviewers do not know the names of the author of the text and the author does not know the identity of the reviewers. All reviews are archived. 

The peer review form requires the reviewer to comment on the professional quality of the paper, considering the following points: 

  • Does the article correspond to the focus of Filosofie dnes [Philosophy Today]? Is the issue related to the issues addressed by contemporary philosophy?  
  • Does the article address relevant issues within its focus? Does the author bring any interesting insight into the issue or a new perspective in the field?  
  • Does the article have a clearly formulated thesis and argumentative structure?  
  • Is the article clearly structured and stylistically appropriately written? Does the author use correct technical terminology? Does the content of the article correspond to the submitted abstract?  
  • Does the article meet the requirements set out in the journal’s statements of publication ethics and instructions for authors?  

The reviewer should prepare the review within six weeks. The honored review must be at least 1 standard page long and must contain a decision:  

  • I recommend for publication  
  • I recommend for publication with the following comments  
  • I recommend for publication after reworking  
  • I do not recommend for publication  

This evaluation can be further elaborated or commented on in the section Report for the editors. In the section Report for the author, we ask the reviewer to provide a justification as detailed as possible for any objections the reviewer has to the text; especially if she/he does not recommend accepting the article as is. We ask the reviewer to formulate all her/his comments to be clear to the author what should be edited in the article (if adjustments are required), or why the article should be rejected.