Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, and Editorial Policy of the Journal

The peer review process, publication ethics, and editorial policy of the journal adhere to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics / COPE, (http://www.publicationethics.org). The process is aimed at ensuring an objective evaluation of the content of scientific articles, assessing their compliance with the journal’s requirements, and providing a comprehensive analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.

All scientific articles submitted to the journal undergo a peer review process.

Publication ethics

Within the editorial policy a collection "Anthropological measurements of philosophical research" stick consecutively to publishing standards of COPE Code of Conduct publications, approved by COP (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Materials are reviewed by members of the journal editorial board and/or by the external independent experts on the basis of objectivity and from the standpoint of the higher international academic quality standards, and edited.

Editorial board reserves the right for stylistic alteration of the typescript. Corrections are coordinated with the author which, in the opinion of the editorial board, can change the meaning of the text.

The editorial board of the scientific publication reserves the right to reject articles that do not meet requirements and topics of the collection. "

Opinions and proposals expressed in articles do not necessarily coincide with the Editorial Board views. Reliability of the information in the articles, the accuracy of the names, statistics, surnames and citations are under the author′s responsibility.

The editors reserve the right for minor literary wording of texts and abridgements with the author's style retention. Provided materials are not returned and can not be published in other scientific journals. 

Peer Review Procedure

Scientific articles that meet the formal criteria are examined for their relevance to the journal's subject and the selection of appropriate reviewers. The peer review process is anonymous for both the author and the reviewer, conducted through "blind" peer review. Reviewers may include members of the editorial board and external experts who are knowledgeable in the subject area and have publications related to the field.

The reviewer evaluates the following:

* Adequacy of the article's relevance;
* Justification for linking the identified problem to important scientific or practical issues;
* Completeness of the analysis of recent research and publications on the given topic;
* Consistency of the article's goals with the problem addressed by the author;
* Justification of the scientific results obtained;
* Scientific conclusions and their alignment with the article’s objectives;
* Terminological clarity in the article;
* Thoroughness of the author's analysis of the literature on the topic, including foreign sources;
* Features of the author's style and language (clarity of language and style, necessity for further scientific and literary editing, etc.).

The reviewer provides a conclusion on the suitability of the article for publication, specifying its major shortcomings (if any), and may recommend it as: "recommended," "recommended with corrections of the noted shortcomings," or "not recommended."

After revisions, the author resubmits the article for a second review.

A positive review does not automatically guarantee publication. The final decision on the article’s suitability for publication is made by the editorial board.

The editorial board reserves the right to edit the submitted text of the article.

Articles returned to the authors for revisions should be resubmitted within 10 days of receipt. If returned later, the submission date and the review date will be adjusted accordingly.

Editor and Publisher Ethics Principles

In making publication decisions, the editorial board is guided by the accuracy of the submitted data and the scientific significance of the work.

The intellectual content of manuscripts is evaluated independently of the authors' race, gender, religious beliefs, origin, nationality, social status, or political views.

The editorial board will not publish a manuscript if there are grounds to consider it plagiarized. The academic integrity percentage should be 80% or higher.

The editorial board will respond to any claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials and will take all necessary measures to restore any violated rights in case of a conflict.

Reviewer Ethics Principles

A manuscript received for review is considered a confidential document, the intellectual property of the authors, and may not be shared or discussed with third parties who are not authorized by the editorial board.

By submitting a manuscript for review, authors entrust reviewers with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, which may affect their reputation and career. Disclosing confidential review information violates the author's rights. Confidentiality may only be breached in cases of claims of falsification or misrepresentation of materials; in all other cases, confidentiality must be preserved.

The reviewer conducts a scientific evaluation of the author’s materials to objectively assess the quality of the manuscript and determine its adherence to scientific, literary, and ethical standards. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

Reviewers will not consider manuscripts if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or any other relationship with the authors or organizations associated with the manuscript.

Ethics Principles for Authors of Scientific Articles

The author(s) of the article guarantees that the submitted manuscript:

* Provides accurate results of the conducted research;
* Is not plagiarized;
* Has not been previously published in any language;
* Includes proper citations to publications used in the preparation of the article.