Philosophy, Economics and Law Review

The manuscript peer-review process has been established to ensure that the journal maintains high scholarly and theoretical standards, publishing only the most significant and relevant research. The primary objective of this procedure is the rigorous selection of authored works, an impartial assessment of the submitted content’s quality, and the monitoring of compliance with scientific, ethical, and literary requirements. All reviewers are required to maintain objectivity and strictly adhere to the principles outlined in the “Publication Ethics” section.

1. Anonymity system: the Editorial Board of Philosophy, Economics and Law Review employs a double-blind peer-review model. This means that the author’s personal data is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the expert, in turn, remains anonymous to the author.

2. Preliminary screening: all materials submitted to the editorial office are initially checked for compliance with the criteria specified in the “Publication Terms” section. Only those articles that have successfully passed the initial editorial control, copyright verification, and are formatted according to the “Formatting Guidelines” are admitted to the formal evaluation stage.

3. Initial expert examination: the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy conducts the initial analysis of the work. Should the Editor-in-Chief have any conflict of interest (e.g., being an author/co-author of the work or having family or professional ties with the authors), the examination is conducted by the Deputy Editor or another member of the Editorial Board who is an uninterested party. The material must strictly align with the journal’s profile. If all conditions are met, the technical editor assigns a registration code to the article and removes any information from the text that would allow the author(s) to be identified.

4. Engagement of external experts: the anonymised manuscript is sent via email to the Editorial Board member responsible for the relevant scientific field, as well as to two independent reviewers. This process involves Ukrainian and international scholars holding a Doctor of Sciences degree (or equivalent) who specialise in the same field as the author of the study. The editorial office sends the expert a formal request along with the manuscript and a review form. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author or have any other conflicts of interest.

5. Subject of analysis: while reviewing the article, experts must address the following points:

consistency between the article’s content and the stated title;
the degree of novelty and relevance of the scientific problem addressed;
evidence of the practical utility of the research conducted;
the significance of the study for a wide range of scholars.

6. Results and evaluation timelines: based on the analysis, the reviewer may reach one of the following decisions:

accept the article for publication;
accept for publication after minor revisions;
recommend publication only subject to substantial revision;
reject the submitted material.

In the event of a rejection or a request for revision, the expert is obliged to provide a written and reasoned explanation of their position. An independent specialist is given two weeks from the date of receipt to review the manuscript. Reviews are kept in the editorial archives for three years from the publication date of the relevant issue.

7. Interaction with the author: the editorial office informs the author of the decision. If the article requires revision, it is returned to the author alongside the text of the review (without identifying the experts). The revised version of the work is then resent for evaluation, where reviewers may suggest additional corrections. The submission of a revised text does not guarantee automatic acceptance; if the changes do not satisfy the experts, the article will be rejected.

8. Final decision: the Editor-in-Chief examines the feedback received and makes the final decision regarding the inclusion of the article in the journal, based on the experts’ conclusions and the journal's general requirements. They cannot participate in decisions regarding their own works, the works of family members or colleagues, or works in which they have a personal interest. Such materials are evaluated independently, without the involvement of the Editor-in-Chief or their research group, and the final decision rests with the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Typical peer-review period: 2-4 weeks.
Average time to first decision: 4-8 weeks.