The main motivation for most authors to publish in an open access journal is increased visibility and ultimately a citation advantage. Research citations of articles in a hybrid open access journal has shown that open access articles are cited more frequently or earlier than non-Open Access articles.
Open Access brings increased visibility to institutions that fund and supervise research.
Universities, institutes, foundations, national funds for scientific research and government agencies all benefit from the increased visibility and higher citation rates of funded projects. Moreover, nrestricted use of and immediate access to free research literature provides a great resource for teaching, conference presentations and lectures, and thus both teaching staff and students benefit highly from it.
Journal "BULLETIN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC AND HUMANITARIAN RESEARCH" publishes articles about the relationship between different state institutions and society. The editorial Board determines the procedure for publication of articles.
The articles are reviewed and accepted only after at least two positive reviews of three reviewers.
The author retains the copyrights to his articles.
Journal is published two times a year:
№ 1 - January, February, March, April, May, June,
№ 2 - July, August, September, October, November, December.
The journal publishes articles in the following scientific areas:
Historical Sciences and Archeology;
History of Science and Technology;
Philosophy of Science;
The manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it has not been published anywhere, is either submitted or has already been accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects the authors to allow one of them to correspond with the journal on all issues related to the manuscript. All received manuscripts are duly recognized. At submission, the editor first reviews all submitted manuscripts in order to ensure their formal consideration.
Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical deficiencies or lack of meaningful communication, if they are not prepared in accordance with the instructions in the journal, are rejected before proceeding to official review. Manuscripts, which are unlikely to be of interest to readers, may also be rejected at this stage.
Manuscripts are sent to reviewers. Each manuscript is finally reviewed by the editor of the journal, which, based on the comments of reviewers, makes the final decision on the manuscript. Comments and suggestions received from reviewers are sent to the appropriate author. If necessary, the author should provide a response to the commentator's comments points and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated until the reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript.
Manuscripts accepted for publication are copied for grammar, punctuation, printing style and format. Page proofs are sent to the appropriate author. It is expected that the relevant author will return the corrected evidence within two days. It may not be possible to include patches received after this period. The entire process of submitting the manuscript to the final decision and sending and receiving evidence is completed online.
If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.
The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
The peer-review process is single blinded; that is, the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are.
The review process should ensure that all authors have equal opportunities to publish their documents. Acceptance and planning of publication of articles in the journal should not prevent the added criteria and procedures that are different from those contained in the review process.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors https://publicationethics.org.
Duties of the Editors-in-Chief
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief and ananuy editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted mscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
The handling Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Duties of peer reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Duties of authors
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.
"Scientific Electronic Edition", the owner and manager of the journal Ershov, Bogdan Anatolievich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor
© Journal "Bulletin Social-Economic and Humanitarian Research", 2018 (Previous Name "Vestnik èkonomičeskoj teorii")