1. All manuscripts submitted to the Antinomies journal are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review. This model of scientific expertise implies that the author of the manuscript remains anonymous to reviewers, and vice versa.
2. Submitted manuscripts are checked for compliance with the Journal’s thematic scope and submission requirements. In cases where the submission fails to meet the minimum selection criteria, the author is advised to resubmit the text in an appropriate form.
3. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the Journal’s thematic scope are not accepted for further review, about which decision the authors are notified within 2 weeks from the date of submission.
4. Submitted manuscripts meeting the minimum selection criteria are forwarded for double-blind peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field of research.
5. Submissions by the Editorial Board members are reviewed on common grounds by external specialists.
6. The Editorial Board has the right to reject manuscripts without peer review in case of their inappropriate scientific quality.
7. Peer review is performed by leading Russian and foreign researchers, including members of the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editors select reviewers for each submitted manuscript.
8. As a rule, the review process is completed within the period of 2 months. However, at the request of the reviewers or when additional expert evaluation is required, the review period may be extended. The author(s) are notified in writing about the extension of the review period.
9. Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents protected by the copyright law.
10. Reviewers must decline a review invitation when having any relationship with the author that may be considered as a potential conflict of interest, since such a relationship may affect the unbiased evaluation of the work under review.
11. Upon completion of the peer review, reviewers are requested to make one of the following recommendations:
- To accept the manuscript for publication without revisions;
- To accept the manuscript for publication following minor revision;
- To accept following major revision and another round of peer review;
- To reject the manuscript outright.
Reviewers are requested to focus on the following aspects: a) Correspondence between the manuscript’s content and its title; b) Scientific relevance; c) Scientific novelty; d) Research and/or practical significance; e) Depth of elaboration and rigour of argumentation; f) Abstract quality, its informativeness and comprehensiveness; g) Language and style of presentation; h) Rigour of the conclusions.
12. The reviewers’ conclusions are forwarded to the author(s).
13. The authors are invited to notify the Editorial Board orally or in writing on their decision to decline the reviewers’ invitation to revise the manuscript, thereby declining the publication.
14. In cases where the reviewers recommend major revision, the Editor requests the author(s) to address the suggestions or provide reasoned objections. The revised manuscript is resubmitted within a maximum of 2 months for final evaluation. The revised manuscript is additionally forwarded to peer review.
15. Revised manuscripts resubmitted after the deadline of 2 months are withdrawn from the publication process. The authors are invited to submit their manuscript as a new submission.
16. In cases when two reviewers have expressed conflicting opinions, the Editor has the right to invite an additional reviewer for evaluation of the manuscript.
17. Positive reviews do not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript, since the final publication decision is made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief.
18. Manuscripts that were rejected following peerreview cannot be resubmitted to the Antinomies journal.
19. Upon a positive publication decision, the author is notified of the planned date of publication.
20. All conflicts arising during the review process are handled exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief.
21. Original reviews remain deposited in the Editorial Office for 5 years.
22. For convenience, the reviewers are offered a structured reviewer template.
23. No fee is charged to cover the cost of peer review.