- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
The core purpose of the Journal is to highlight the results of current research conducted by scientific community in promising fields of R&D and to promote developments in science and education.
The scope of the Journal comprises:
- informing public with intermediate and final results of the newest research in sociology, political science, culturology, and history;
- enhancing exchange of scientific opinions, ideas and views within the professional community;
- enabling further implementation of fundamental and applied research in sociology, political science, and culturology;
- discussion on modern forms of university education in the fields of humanities, sociology, political science, and culturology.
Section Policies
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly 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.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
All research articles submitted to editorial office are subject to mandatory peer-reviewing.
1. Reviewing is made by reviewers from Russia and other countries who are leading experts in relevant fields.
The decision to select a reviewer for the examination of an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Editor, and Head of the Editorial office. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
2. Each article is sent for reviewing to 1-2 reviewers.
3. Reviewer may abnegate reviewing should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the reviewing, the reviewer makes one of the following recommendations (each reviewer’s decision should be substantiated):
- the article is recommended to be published without changes, as it was submitted;
- the article is recommended to be published after the author revises the manuscript to address specific concerns expressed by the reviewer;
- the article needs to be reviewed by another (one more) reviewer;
- the article could not be published in the Jounral.
4. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the editorial office of the Journal sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with arguments (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review.
5. If the authors refuse to revise the paper, they must notify the editorial office in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not send the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with a refusal to revise the article, the editorial office removes it from the list of enregistered submissions. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notification of the removal of the manuscript from the list due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.
6. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-chief at a meeting of the Editorial Board.
7. The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article that is not recommended for publication by the decision of the Editorial Board is not accepted for reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
8. After the Editorial Board of the Journal makes a decision on the acceptance of the article for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author (-s) about this and indicates approximate publication dates.
9. A positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-chief.
10. The originals of reviews are kept in the Editorial office of the Journal for 5 years.
Publishing Ethics
- Introduction
1.1. The publication in peer reviewed journals 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 scientific community.
- Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of the Journal 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 scientific community. 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 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 editors or reviewers in making this decision.
2.2. Integrity – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of the Journal must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors and the publisher as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an 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.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or possibly institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in analysis – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. 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. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers 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
3.6.1. 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.
3.6.2. 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
4.1.1. 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.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. 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.
4.3.2. 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.
4.4. 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 (eg, clinical guidelines, 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
4.6.1. 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.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.8. 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 the Journal and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn 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.
Founder
- Russian University of Transport
Author fees
Publication in “P.O.I.S.K." is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
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.
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.
Plagiarism detection
“P.O.I.S.K." use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in “P.O.I.S.K.", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “P.O.I.S.K." we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.
