About the Journal

Another One was conceived in 2022 in response to public demand for a new periodical dedicated to independent philosophical thought. From the very beginning, Another One has positioned itself as an international journal providing a platform for any high-quality expression in philosophy and related fields: sociology, political science et cetera. 

General Information

The idea of Another One belongs to master's students of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University (from 2023 — graduate students and independent researchers) and represents an event of intellectual cooperation and close friendship, materialized in the search for answers to the intellectual and spiritual challenges of the early 2020s as Another One. Fundamentally, we don’t crave for permanent affiliations and funding. Another One is a horizontal periodical focused exclusively on integrity, height and independence of thinking and political searches.

Another One accepts articles, essays, reviews and discussions. All materials accepted by the editors undergo a double-blind review procedure and are published in the public domain.

Peer Review Process

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff of the journal. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

  1. Members of the editorial board and leading global experts in corresponding areas of sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past 3 years.
  2. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2–4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
  3. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
  • to accept the paper in its present state;
  • to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
  • that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
  • to reject the manuscript outright.
  1. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 3 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
  2. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
  3. The editors conduct no more than three rounds of peer review for each manuscript. If, after the three-fold revision of the manuscript, the majority of the reviewers or the editorial board have significant comments on the text, the manuscript is rejected and removed from consideration. In this case, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the rejection of the manuscript.
  4. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
  5. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
  6. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
  7. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
  8. The authors have the right to argue the decision of the editorial board to reject the manuscript and to remove it from consideration. To do this, they should send an appeal to the editorial board, addressed to the editor-in-chief. The appeal should include detailed reasons for the authors' disagreement with the decision of the editorial board (based on the conclusions of the reviewers), give reasons in favor of revising the decision, and send the revised manuscript (if such revision is appropriate). Disputes and requests from authors to revise the decisions of the editorial board are considered personally by the editor-in-chief at the meeting of the editorial board. The decisions made by the editor-in-chief are not subject to challenge.
  9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited permanently (not less than 5 years).
  10. Manuscript reviews are not published. Reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation in case of query.

Open Access Policy

This journal is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediately upon publication. Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition — it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. For more information please read BOAI statement.    
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge (open license Creative Commons).

Publications from Issue no. 1  2023 are licensed by Creative Commons International Public License: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows unrestricted use of works for non-commercial purposes, subject to attribution.

You are free to:

  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:    

Notices:

  • You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
  • No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

Statement of Ethics of the Journal

Introduction

Another One is a journal that has as its mission the development of deep, through academic discussion on topics regardless of their nature: they may touch upon issues of gender, religion, ethnicity, the environment, ethical, political and other controversial topics.

The editorial staff’s primary objective with regard to publication, along with our international journal experience led Another One to develop special ethical guidelines derived from those created by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE began developing ethics for e-journal publication beginning in 1997; consequently, this group of experts has an accumulated wealth of experience in this area. GMD chose to create its own ethical policy for the e-journal based upon COPE’s policy documents.

Materials published in Another One, a peer-reviewed journal, serve several functions, including quality control as well as protecting scientific work and research results. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that any and all published data is accurate and trustworthy. Another One’s publishing process relies upon people who have different areas of expertise, each of whom plays an important role in achieving our goals. All authors, editorial board members, experts and reviewers, publishers and founders of Another One are responsible for observing ethical standards at all stages of the journal’s preparation and publication. Below is a brief overview of key requirements for editors, reviewers and authors working for Another One.

1. Ethical Standards

1.1 Editors’ Responsibilities

— All people holding editorial positions with Another One (including but not limited to chief editor, section editor, literary or scientific editor) will act in a balanced, fair and objective manner when performing his/her duties. Discriminating against authors for any reason, whether based upon gender, ethnic, religious or political beliefs, is unacceptable.
— In the event of a perceived conflict of interest and/or receipt of complaints for non-compliance with the Another One ethical norms as described above, the editor will inform the manager or founder of the journal regarding the issue in a timely and professional manner.
— The editor shall provide any author the opportunity to reasonably respond to any comments. All complaints will be investigated regardless of when the original publication was approved.
— All final published documents, as well as editorial changes and original documents, shall be retained using the OJS platform that Another One editors choose for electronic document management.

1.2 Reviewers’ Responsibilities

— The reviewer is responsible for deciding whether or not to accept, refine, or reject materials.
— The reviewer must understand that his work contributes to the process of improving the quality of the published material through the timely review of the manuscript.
— Complying with and maintaining the confidentiality of any information provided by the author or editor is the direct responsibility of the expert reviewer. He/she does not have the right or privilege of saving or copying the author/s manuscript either in whole or in part.
— If the reviewer questions the manuscript either for its original content or its being produced by the author; or he becomes aware of the information that this manuscript has already been published or sent simultaneously to another journal, he must inform the section editor and the editor-in-chief as soon as possible.
— The reviewer is required to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (institutional, joint or other relations between the reviewer and the author), to notify the editor with regard to the issue, and if necessary to decline review of the manuscript.

1.3 Author/Co-Author’s Responsibilities

— Submit the most accurate data in additional accompanying documents that are submitted with the manuscript, in accordance with the established rules for the processing of personal data.
— Confirm that the submitted manuscript is not being considered or not accepted for publication by another publisher. If any part of the submitted manuscript content exists in an article already published or a manuscript submitted for publication in another journal, author will provide pertinent publication details and/or provide references to sources.
— Verify that all work contained in a submitted manuscript is original, as well as  confirm and give links to all information from other sources cited in the manuscript. In addition, author is responsible for receiving permission to play any content from other sources.
— Announce any potential conflicts of interest (for example, if the author has a competing interest, either explicit or implicit, that can be considered as having inappropriate influence on his or her responsibilities at any stage of the publication process).

1.4 Publication Founder’s Responsibilities

— To ensure that Another One’s best practices, as exercised, comply with the above stated principles, commitments and standards; and said best practices are applied in a fair and equitable manner to all submitted works.
— Follow-up with editors of the Another One journal in a regular, timely fashion to ensure that compliance with Another One’s stated ethical principles applies to all submissions.

2. Professional Remedies for Unethical Behavior

2.1 Defining and Recognizing Unethical Behaviorя

— Any incidence of unethical conduct as defined by the Another One stated ethical principles requires prompt and professional identification. The editor or founder of Another One needs to be informed about such conduct as soon as possible by any person who determines that conduct fails to meet the guidelines of the publication’s ethical principles.
— Any remedy to a reported incidence of unethical conduct must be confirmed by accurate information and reasonable evidence before the editor or founder of this publication can initiate an internal investigation.

2.2 Investigation

— Only the editor or the founder of Another One can make decisions about the discussion of the any unethical behavior, defined as falling outside of the scope of stated ethical principles defined by Another One.

— The entire procedure for investigating ethical violations will not go beyond the scope of internal proceedings and the circle of people who are required by virtue of their relationship with Another One to participate in any initiated investigation.

2.3 Minor Violations

Minor irregularities may be considered without the need for more extensive action. In all instances the author/s will be given the opportunity to respond to any comments.

2.4 Serious Violations

— Серьезные нарушения заставляют редакцию и учредителя проводить более углубленное расследование.

2.5 Results (In order of increasing severity, used separately or in combination)

— The author or reviewer will automatically accept Another One’s ethical standards when submitting or reviewing a manuscript that prompts Another One to inform them about any misunderstanding, abuse or misuse of Another One ethical standards.
— A strictly worded letter will be sent to any party who violates Another One’s ethical standards, highlighting abusive behavior and requiring correction of said behaviors on the part of the party in the future.
— Another One reserves the right to publish an editorial describing the misconduct.
— Another One will submit an official letter to the employer or sponsoring organization in which the author or reviewer works.
— Another One will require and oversee the retraction or removal of published material from affected network publications containing information credited to either the author/s or reviewer/s, including any and all data storage and indexing organizations.
— Another One will include any offending author/s or reviewer/s in Another One’s official black list of the network publication, resulting in subsequent refusal to publish or review the manuscript.
— Presentation of the case and the results of the proceedings will be presented to  relevant professional organizations and/or the highest authority for further investigation, including the seeking of judicial remedies under applicable civil law.

Conclusion

Another One hopes that this detailed list of ethical standards will be a template for the actions of all participants in the editorial and publishing activities of the publication.