Dialogue and Universalism

logoleft
logoright

 

 

PEER REVIEWING (DOUBLE-BLIND)

If a manuscript includes serious offensive attacks, discriminatory or intolerant language, clearly impolite tone, personal attacks it may be rejected by Dialogue and Universalism  editors, and not sent to reviewing.

All the submitted papers which are free from the above indicated misconduct  are reviewed by suitably competent reviewers. In reviewing we respect  the principles of objectivity, of no conflict of interest, and the confidentiality of papers till the time of their publication.

Dialogue and Universalism follows a double-blind peer reviewing procedure, that is, neither an author nor a reviewer knows each other’s identities.

The Author is requested to submit a manuscript prepared for double-blind reviewing, i.e., without author’s name, affiliation, self-identifying citations and references. A separate title page, including the title of the manuscript, Author’s name, information about the Author, disclosures, or funding information, and the contact information should be submitted.

The reviewers are requested to answer to the following questions:

1) Does the submitted paper match the thematic scope of Dialogue and Universalism?

 2) What is the academic level of the submitted manuscript, and does it satisfy general criteria of the academic publication?

 3) Is the submitted paper cognitively valuable, especially, does it offer a new, original knowledge on the investigated topic?

 4) What are the recommended changes?

The Author is requested to revise her/his manuscript according to Reviewers’ comments.

The Reviewers provide recommendations regarding the value for the publication of the reviewed manuscript. However, it is the Dialogue and Universalism editors who finally decide on accepting or rejecting the submitted paper, mainly on the basis of the peer-review, but also by taking into account their own views on paper’s originality and clarity as well as its importance for the scope and mission of the journal. 

Editorial decisions are made after the receipt of the reports from a reviewer or reviewers. The Author may expect the decision  within 2 months of his/her initial submission.

Authors may appeal against negative editorial decisions. In the situation of appealing, the controversial manuscript is sent  to a next Reviewer. At the same time the first reviewer who recommended to not publish the manuscript is informed on the Author’s reservations and asked for commenting them. Both the Reviewers and Dialogue and Universalism editors, among others members of the Advisory Editorial Board, take part in making a final decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




created by mastalerz.it