OK

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more

Editorial Procedure

Organon F follows a double-blind peer reviewing policy, meaning that the author’s identity is not disclosed to the reviewers, and vice versa. This double-blind peer review policy applies to research articles and discussion notes; reviews and reports are read and considered for publication by the editors.

The review process normally lasts 10 to 12 weeks; occasionally, it may take longer due to unexpected complications (such complications may arise, for example, if several reviewers decline our invitation to evaluate the manuscript, reviewers do not deliver their reports on time, or a third reviewer must be invited under the conditions specified below). Final decisions about submitted manuscripts are made by the editors on the basis of the reviewers’ reports.

Before assigning and inviting reviewers, all submitted manuscripts are checked by the editors in order to ascertain whether they are compatible with the journal’s scope and meet scholarly and professional standards. If the editors decide that a manuscript does not meet these requirements, it will be desk rejected for publication and returned to the author. Manuscripts that contain serious linguistic and stylistic deficiencies will also be desk rejected. If a manuscript passes the initial scrutiny of the editors, the normal review process will commence.

Normally, every manuscript is reviewed by two reviewers. Each reviewer may suggest one of the following recommendations:

  1. “accept” – no changes are required, or a limited number of linguistic or stylistic corrections are needed;
  2. “accept with minor changes” – some changes are required in order to make the manuscript clearer, better organized or stronger, but hypotheses, data, arguments and conclusions remain generally unchallenged;
  3. “accept with major changes” – some changes that concern hypotheses, data, arguments or conclusions are required, but the changes do not undermine the overall aim of the manuscript;
  4. “reject and resubmit” – some changes that concern hypotheses, data, arguments or conclusions are required, but the changes may undermine the overall aim of the manuscript;
  5. “reject” – no reasonable number of changes would make the manuscript acceptable for publication.

If reviewers propose incompatible recommendations, a third reviewer is usually invited to assess the manuscript. The following pairs of recommendations are taken to be incompatible:

  1. “accept” + “reject”
  2. “accept with minor changes” + “reject”
  3. “accept with major changes” + “reject”

If the third reviewer suggests a recommendation other than “reject”, the negative recommendation suggested by one of the initial reviewers will not be considered for the purposes of making the final decision; nevertheless, the author will obtain all reports, including the negative one, and will be asked to take all comments, suggestions and criticisms into account. If the third reviewer suggests that the manuscript be rejected, the final decision will be “reject”.

If reviewers suggest recommendations that are compatible, the final decision will usually comply with the less favorable recommendation.

If the final decision is “accept”, the author will be asked to deliver a final (non-anonymized) version of the manuscript.

If the final decision is “accept with minor changes”, the author will be invited to provide a revised version in which the reviewers’ comments, suggestions and criticisms have been taken into account; editors will read the revised version to assess whether it satisfactorily responds to the reviewers’ comments, suggestions and criticisms.

If the final decision is “accept with major changes”, the author will be invited to provide a revised version in which the reviewers’ comments, suggestions and criticisms have been taken into account; the same reviewers will read the revised version to assess whether it satisfactorily responds to their comments, suggestions and criticisms.

If the final decision is “reject and resubmit”, the author will be invited to submit a considerably revised version; the revised version will be reviewed as a new submission (not necessarily by the same reviewers).

If the final decision is “reject”, no revised version will be reconsidered for publication.


Contact

Institute of Philosophy
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Klemensova 19
813 64 Bratislava
Slovak Republic
(+421 2) 5292 1215
FAX (+421 2) 5292 1215

Organon F takes part on the long-term preservation of the digital cultural heritage carried out by the University Library in Bratislava.