In order to ensure a high scientific level and quality of papers published in the European Journal of Psychoanalysis, all materials submitted to the editorial office are subject to peer review.
Rules for reviewing scientific papers:
1. The materials of scientific papers undergo primary control for compliance with all formal requirements as to the subject, scientific profile, content, structure, volume, etc. In case of non-compliance with the formal requirements, the materials of the papers are returned to the authors for revision in order to bring them into compliance with the requirements.
2. The level of uniqueness of the author’s text for all submitted materials is determined by means of appropriate software. Manuscripts that contain plagiarism or textual borrowings without reference to the original source are rejected by the Editorial Board of the journal.
3. If the paper does not correspond to the subject of the journal and / or the permissible percentage of uniqueness of the text, the author is informed about the impossibility of its publication, and the paper materials are sent to the author for revision.
4. After initial reviewing by the Editorial Board and checking for plagiarism, the paper is sent for peer review.
5. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) appoints the reviewer. The reviewer is elected from among the members of the Editorial board or enlisted from outside.
6. This Journal uses double-blind review:
– the reviewers don’t know the author’s personal details;
– the authors don’t know the reviewer’s personal details.
7. Based on the results of the expert assessment of scientific paper, a reviewer can:
– recommend the paper for publication without revision;
– recommend the paper for publication after revision by its author, taking into account the reviewer’s comments and suggestions;
– do not recommend the article for publication.
8. When reviewing scientific papers, the reviewers should:
– pay special attention to the relevance and significance of the scientific problem raised in the paper, the compliance of the paper with the subject matter of the journal;
– characterize the consistency, logic nature and level of language proficiency in the presentation of paper material;
– assess the equality between the paper content and the selected approaches to research and the goals and objectives set;
– assess the validity of the findings of the study and the degree of their scientific novelty;
– assess the theoretical and applied value of the study performed;
– assess the accuracy, relevance and reliability of the data and sources used;
– determine the correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, figures, and the quality of visualization of the results of the study;
– assess the author’s compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to original sources;
– note in the review the advantages and disadvantages identified in the paper, provide the author with recommendations for improving, advancing the study on this topic or revealing new aspects of the scientific problem under consideration.
9. Scientific papers may be sent for re-review after their revision carried out in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendations.
10. The reviewer sends the completed review to the editorial office by e-mail.
11. If the reviewer’s comments are not corrected, the paper is not allowed for publication.
12. The manuscripts of papers accepted for publication are not returned to the authors.