Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Skhid publication is focused on multidimensional scientific coverage of a wide range of topical philosophical and historical issues in the context of cultural and civilizational development of mankind. The main headings include some fields of hilosophy, history, religious studies and other humanities. The Journal is a communication ground for establishing a dialogue among  intellectuals of the East and West.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

History of Philosophy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Social Philosophy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Philosophical anthropology. Philosophy of culture

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Political philosophy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Religious studies and theology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

History of Ukraine

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

World History

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Historiography, Source Studies and Special Historical Disciplines

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Special Issue

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Information Society

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Philosophy of Education

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Double “blind” reviewing

Reviewing is done by highly qualified experts and aims to raise the quality of research articles submitted for publication.

The procedure of reviewing is anonymous for authors and reviewers,it includes a grounded opinion from two independent experts (i.e. double “blind” examination).

The reviewers are supposed to define:

  • if the contents of the article corresponds to the declared title;
  • if the contents of the article corresponds to the profile of the journal;
  • if the contents of the article is new;
  • if the article corresponds to the scientific level of the journal;
  • if it is reasonable to publish the article taking into account the previous literature on the subject and if it may be interesting for a wide range of readers;
  • what sorts of positive and negative features characterize the article, what sorts of corrections can done in case the article has some drawbacks;

4. All articles undergo an electronic test through the program «Advego Plagiatus» with an intuition interface that finds partial and full textual copies in the Internet. Plagiatus show the level of originality and marks a percentage of textual coincidence.

5. Reviews (without the names of the reviewers) are sent to the author (authors) and the articles are revised, basically on points of criticism.


Publication Frequency

6 issues a year


Open Access Policy

"SKHID" is an open access journal. All articles are free for users to access, read, download and print.

Articles are licensed under the terms of the CREATIVE COMMONS Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0).

 This license allows people to copy and distribute the material in any form or format, remix, transform and take the material as a basis on the terms:

a) Attribution and reference to this license;

b) non-commercial use of texts.




1. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory - subscription catalog of American publishing Bowker, is the largest database that describes the global flow of periodicals in all subject areas


2. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) - search engine (Germany), which is one of the most powerful suppliers of actual data on the scientific publications of European scientists (Link).


3. РИНЦ - international bibliographic database of scientific publications of scientists. For information on publications and citations of articles based on the database author uses analytical tools ScienceIndex (Link).


4. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is website that lists open access journals. The project defines open access journals as scientific and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by exercising peer review or editorial quality control and use a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. (Link)

5. EBSCO - aggregator of full-text publications. Includes 375 full-text databases, andmore than 350,000 electronic books.

6. Philosophy Documentation Center is repository and resource center that provides access to scholarly materials in applied ethics, philosophy, religious studies, and related disciplines.

7. Index Copernicus (Poland) - International scientometric base. (Index Copernicus Journals Master List). This website includes indexing, ranking and abstracting journals, and is a platform for scientific collaboration and joint research projects. (Page "Skhid" ICJML)

8. WorldCat - the world's largest bibliographic database, with over 240 million records of all kinds of products for 470 languages. Base is created by joint efforts of more than 72 thousand libraries in 170 countries across the organization Online Computer Library Center.

9. Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers. (Link)

10. ERIH PLUS - the European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (link).


1. The British Library, St. Pancras (London, United Kingdom)

2. Stanford University Libraries (Stanford, United States)

3. University of Alberta (Edmonton, Canada)

4. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (Urbana, United States)

5. Duke University Libraries  (Durham, United States)

6. Library of Congress (Washington, United States)
7. Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, United States)

8. Harvard University (Cambridge, United States)

9. University of Southern Denmark (Odense, Denmark)

10. German Institute of Global and Area Studies: GIGA (Hamburg, Germany

11. University of New Brunswick (Canada)



The information contained in the submitted article should not be used in any of the editor's own works and members of the editorial board without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or ideas received during review should be kept secret and not used for personal gain. The editor-in-chief should refuse to participate in the review in the event that there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the authors, companies or institutions relevant to the article. The editor-in-chief should require all authors of the journal to provide information on relevant competing interests and publish corrections if the conflict of interest was exposed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate action may be performed, such as publication of a refutation or expression of concern.


Ethics of publications and independent practice in publication process

The editorial staff of the Skhid Journal stick to certain requirements in selection and acceptance of articles submitted to its Editorial Board.


In developing its publishing policy provisions the Skhid Editorial Board followed recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org ) as well as work experience of international and Ukrainian professional communities, research organizations and editorial bodies.


Ethical commitments of Journal editors


1. All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The editorial staff reserves the right to reject an article or return it as requiring improvement. The author in question shall refine his/her article in line with criticisms of the reviewers or editorial staff.

2. An editor shall examine all manuscripts submitted for publication in an unbiased manner and duly evaluate each paper, irrespective of an author’s (authors’) race, nationality as well as position or job.

3. An editor shall promptly examine manuscripts submitted for publication.

4. All responsibility for acceptance or rejection of any manuscript rests with an editor. A responsible and reasonable approach to fulfilment of these obligations mostly implies that an editor takes into account recommendations of a reviewer, a Doctor of Science in a relevant research area, in respect of quality and authenticity of a manuscript submitted for publication. Manuscripts may however be rejected without reviewing if an editor believes that the former do not comply with the Journal profile.

5. The editors and members of the Editorial Board shall pass no information related to the contents of the manuscript under consideration to other persons except those involved in professional evaluation of the above manuscript. After a positive decision is taken by a respective editor, the article in question is published in the Journal and placed on relevant e-resources.

6. An editor shall respect authors’ intellectual independence.

7. Responsibility and rights of a Journal editor as to any submitted manuscript whose author is the editor him-/herself shall be delegated to any other qualified person.

8. If an editor is furnished some sound evidence of fallacious main contents and conclusions of a work published in the Journal, the former shall further the publication of a respective notice indicating and, if possible, correcting such mistake. This notice may be written by the person who detected the mistake or by an independent author.


Ethical commitments of authors


1. The main commitment of an author is to present an accurate report on the conducted research as well as objective discussion of its relevance.

2. Aprimary notice of research results shall be sufficiently complete and comprise necessary references to any available sources of information.

3. An author shall quote such publications which had a determining influence on the essence of the work covered as well as those which can quickly introduce a reader to some earlier works that are important for understanding the research in question. Except for reviews, quoting of works bearing no direct relation to the submitted article shall be minimized. An author shall carry out a literary search to find and quote original publications which describe studies that are closely related to the above notice. It is also necessary to duly indicate the sources of essentially important materials used in this work if such materials were acquired by somebody else rather than the author him-/herself.

4. One shall avoid the fragmentation of notices of studies. A scientist who pursues extensive studies of a system or a group of related systems shall organize a publication in such a way that each notice would give an entirely complete idea of each aspect of the whole research.

5. When preparing a manuscript for publication, an author shall inform an editor about his/her previous publications or manuscripts which were submitted or accepted for printing. Copies of such manuscripts shall be furnished to an editor, their relevance to the manuscript submitted for publication indicated.

6. An author shall not submit manuscripts which essentially describe the same results to more than one journal as a primary publication unless it is resubmission of the manuscript that was either rejected by the Journal or withdrawn by the author. It is allowed to submit a manuscript of a complete article, which expands a previously published short report on (notice of) the same work. However, when such manuscript is submitted to an editor, the latter shall be informed about it being an expansion or continuation of the study and its preliminary notice shall be quoted in the manuscript.

7. An author shall give a clear indication of sources of all the quoted or presented information with the exception of commonly known data. The information obtained privately, in the process of conversation or correspondence or else during discussions with third persons shall not be used or divulged in the author’s work without express permission of the researcher who passed it. The same shall apply to the information obtained while delivering confidential services such as reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for getting grants.

8. An article may be coauthored by all those persons who have made a substantial scientific contribution to the submitted work and share the responsibility for the results obtained. Other contributions may be indicated in the notes or in the Acknowledgment section. Administrative relations with this research in themselves serve as no ground for qualification of a respective person as a coauthor (in certain cases it may be however appropriate to mention a great administrative support in the work). Deceased persons who meet the above stated criteria shall be included into a list of authors, the note indicating the date of their death. There shall not be given assumed names for an author or coauthor. An author submitting a manuscript for publication is responsible for the list of coauthors comprising all and only those persons who meet the authorship criterion. If an article is coauthored, an author who furnishes contact data and documents to the Editorial Board and is in correspondence with editors assumes a responsibility for consent of the other authors of the article to its publication in the Journal.

9. Authors shall notify an editor of any potential conflict of interests such as consulting or financial interests of some company, which could be affected by the publication of the results comprised by the manuscript in question. Authors shall guarantee the absence of contractual relations or ownership considerations which could influence the publication of the information covered by the submitted manuscript.


Ethical commitments of reviewers


1. Areviewer shall impartially evaluate the quality of a manuscript, a submitted work, its interpretation and presentation as well as take into account the extent of the work conformance to high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer shall respect authors’ intellectual independence.

2. If a chosen reviewer is uncertain that his/her qualifications are adequate for the level of studies covered by a manuscript, he or she shall immediately return the latter.

3. Areviewer shall bear in mind a potential conflict of interests if the manuscript in question is closely related to his/her current or published work. When in doubt, a reviewer shall immediately return the manuscript without reviewing and indicate the conflict of interests.

4. Reviewers shall adequately explain and reason their judgements so that editors and authors can understand the grounds for their criticisms. Any statement of the fact that any observation, conclusion or argument was published earlier on shall be accompanied with a respective reference.

5. Areviewer shall note any cases of inadequate quoting by authors of other researchers’ works that are directly related to the manuscript under review; it shall be taken into account here that remarks on insufficient quoting of a reviewer’s own studies may look like preconceived. A reviewer shall draw an editor’s attention to any essential similarity between the manuscript in question and any published article or any manuscript submitted to other journal at the same time.

6. Areviewer shall provide his/her comments in due time.

7. Reviewers shall not use or divulge any unpublished information, arguments or interpretations comprised by the manuscript in question without consent of its author. If such information is however indicative of the fact that some of a reviewer’s own studies may bring no results, suspension of such work by the reviewer does not contradict any ethical standards.