Focus and Scope
The journal mission is to promote and cultivate the research in the field of Western European medieval and early modern history, the publication of fundamental scientific research papers of both Russian and foreign historians, historiographical overviews, specialized bibliographies; maintenance of an open information environment for the exchange of data, opinions and discussions; organization of communication space for an effective cooperation of researchers from academic and educational centers.
Peer Review Process
Institute of World History, the Russian Academy of Sciences, as a founder, represented by the Editorial board and the Editorial council, is committed to the strict supervision of the published research materials. All reviews and research papers received by the editorial office are subject to mandatory unilateral anonymous (‘blind’) reviewing.
- Members of the Editorial board and the Editorial council, as well as leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief and executive secretary choose readers for peer review. The review process takes 1–2 months.
- Each article is sent to two reviewers.
- Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations (each decision should be substantiated):
- to accept the paper for publication in its present state;
- to invite 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.
- If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to reasonably dispute them (partly or completely). Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 1 month and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
- We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript.
- If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the Editorial board can send it for an additional reviewing. In case of a conflict, the editor-in-chief resolves it by his own authority.
- 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.
- Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
- 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.
- Every issue ready to be published is reviewed by two experts that do not belong to either the Editorial board or the Editorial council of the edition. Based on these reviews, the academic council of the founding organization makes a decision about publication of the issue. Original copies of the reviews are kept for 3 years.
The articles in ‘Srednie Veka’ are indexed by:
• Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more, it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for the journal: "Srednie Veka"
1.2. The Editorial board has a supporting, investing, and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
- Duties of Editors.
2.1. Publication decision. The Editor of a scholarly journal "Srednie Veka" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Srednie Veka" journal’s Editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other reviewers and members of the Editorial board in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play. An Editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality. The Editor and the Editorial board of "Srednie Veka" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4. Vigilance over published record. An Editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations. The Editor, in conjunction with the Editorial board and the Editorial council, should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
- Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
3.2. Promptness. Any selected referee can refuse to review and, in that case, should notify the editor of "Srednie Veka" and excuse himself from the review process during 2–3 working days after getting the proposition of reviewing.
3.3. Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.4. Standard and objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.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 paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Reviewers should not consider 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 papers.
Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards. Authors of reports 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 paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.2. Originality and Plagiarism. 4.2.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.2.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.3. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication. 4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper. 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 acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editor of "Srednie Veka" journal and cooperate with him to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
Author feesPublication in "Srednie Veka" is free of charge for all the authors. The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges. The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).