Editorial Policies
- Aims and Scope
- Sections
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Author Self-Archiving
- “Herald of VNIIDAD”’s Publication Ethics
Aims and Scope
Problems of document science, archival science, archeography, source studies, historiography, methods of historical research, information systems and technologies in archives and organizations activities, standardization.
The journal publishes theoretical (staged, analytical, generalizing, conceptual), applied (experimental, instrumental) and review scientific articles on the specified topics, information and analytical reports.
The target audience of the journal are historians, archivists, document specialists, information technology specialists, university professors, students, postgraduate students, as well as management personnel, recordkeeping specialists, employees of legal, personnel and financial departments of archives and organizations.
Sections
Archival science and document science
Information technologies, use of information resources
Archeography
Source studies
Historiography
Methods of historical research
Standardization
Foreign experience
From the experience of archival institutions and organizations
Experience of regional and federal archival institutions, archival services, documentation support services (DSS) of organizations
Russian archives documents in scientific research
Researches based on archival documents.
Dates of history
Thematic reviews of archival documents collections (for anniversary dates)
Discussion
Several articles and reports on the same topic from different positions and points of view
Information reports
Anniversaries
Information about the anniversaries of famous figures of Russian archives, interviews with them
New publications
Abstracts of VNIIDAD’s new publications.
Peer Review Process
Regulations on the periodic peer-reviewed scientific journal “Herald of VNIIDAD”: approved by order of the director of VNIIDAD No. 48 dated July 30, 2018
5. Procedure for reviewing scientific articles
5.1. Reviewers appointed by the Editorial Board Expert assess (review) scientific articles.
5.2. The Editorial Board organizes the review of all scientific articles that meet the requirements of these Regulations (paragraphs 1.1-1.10).
5.3. Reviewers may be scientific employees of VNIIDAD (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) and other PhD and doctor degree scientists who are specialists in the subject (specialization) of reviewing scientific article and who have had publications on reviewing scientific article subject (specialization) over the past 3 years.
5.4. The review period is determined by agreement with the reviewer for each individual case, pressing for the possibility of scientific articles most prompt publication.
5.5. The reviewer is notified that the reviewing manuscript is the intellectual property of the author(s), other holders of exclusive rights and refers to information that cannot be copied and distributed, used in any other way, and can be used by the reviewer only for the purpose of reviewing.
5.6. The reviewing is executed in accordance with the Review Form for a scientific article submitted for publication in the Journal (Review Form).
5.7. The review content must meet the following requirements:
- a) a scientific article must be professionally analyzed, objectively and reasonably assessed and provided with well-founded recommendations;
- b) the review must cover the following issues:
relevance of the scientific article topic, its compliance with the Journal subject matter;
assessment of the material presentation structure;
academic level (compliance of the terminology, methods, techniques and research results used by the author with modern science and practice achievements; the substantiation degree of judgments, conclusions and recommendations);
scientific novelty; correctness of other authors’ materials use;
compliance of the title, abstract, keywords with the article content;
recommendations for inclusion into the Journal section;
assessment of scientific article readiness for publication in terms of language and style, compliance with the established rules for submitting a scientific article for publication in the Journal;
- c) the review final part must contain substantiated conclusions about the scientific article as a whole and proposals on the advisability or inadvisability of its publication in the Journal. The review should include the final wording:
worth publishing;
worth publishing after correction after specified comments and wishes of the reviewer without re-reviewing;
worth publishing after correction after specified comments and wishes of the reviewer with re-reviewing;
not worth publishing;
- d) the reviewer indicates the last name, initials, affiliation work (position, structural division and organization), academic degree and academic title.
5.8. If a review indicates the need for scientific article revision, the Authors is asked for revision with a list of the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
5.9. After the text have been corrected after reviewer's comments, the Authors submit the scientific article to the Executive Secretary of the Journal, who forwards it to the same reviewer for a second review.
5.10. A scientific article is sent for a second review in the event of:
removal of the reviewer's comments with the note “with a second review”;
authors’ reasoned disagreement with the reviewer's opinion.
5.11. The editors send copies of the reviews text part or a reasoned refusal (without specifying information about the reviewers) to the Authors of the submitted materials, and also send copies of the reviews to the executive body responsible for the development and implementation of state policy and legal regulation in the field of education, scientific, scientific-technical and innovative activities upon receipt of a corresponding request. Provision of the review and information about the reviewer to third parties is possible with the written permission of the reviewer or in cases stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
5.12. A scientific article attested by the reviewer as not worth publishing will not be accepted for re-review. Based on the decision of the Editorial Board, a scientific article attested as not worth publishing may be sent for re-review to another reviewer. In this case, the final decision on the scientific article publication or refusal is made by the Journal’s Editorial and Publishing Board after considering the results of two reviews.
5.13. Reviews of scientific articles manuscripts are kept by the Executive secretary of the Journal for five years.
5.14. The editors have the right to check the text of the article for originality and anti-plagiarism.
5.15. Scientific, informational messages and other materials that are not scientific articles are not reviewed, and the decision on their publication is made by the Editorial Board.
Publication Frequency
The journal is published 6 times a year, 3 times per half-year: No. 1 (January – February), No. 2 (March – April), No. 3 (May – June); No. 4 (July – August), No. 5 (September – October), No. 6 (November – December). Circulation 130 copies.
№ 1 – published on February 28
Articles for the issue are accepted until December 20 of the previous year
№ 2 – published on April 30
Articles for the issue are accepted until February 28
№ 3 – published on June 30
Articles for the issue are accepted until April 30
№ 4 – published on August 31
Articles for the issue are accepted until June 30
№ 5 – published on October 31
Articles for the issue are accepted until August 31
№ 6 – published on December 31
Articles for the issue are accepted until October 31.
There are no special issues, conference materials, special issues or supplements.
Open Access Policy
Articles of the journal “Herald of VNIIDAD” are posted in open access on RCSI Journals Platform (https://journals.rcsi.science/index/index), Scientific Electronic Library LLC (http://www.eLIBRARY.ru) and Iteos LLC (http://www.iteos.ru).
The author of the article receives one author's copy of the journal free of charge. The group of authors (regardless of their number) also receives one author's copy of the journal free of charge. If necessary, authors can purchase additional copies of the journal issue in accordance with the current price list for the sale of scientific and methodological literature.
“Herald of VNIIDAD”’s Publication Ethics
The Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed scientific journal “Herald of VNIIDAD” (hereinafter referred to as the editorial board) adhere to the principles of publication ethics accepted by the international community, reflected in:
- the provisions adopted at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22-24, 2010), http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8102;
- the guidelines and recommendations developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), https://publicationethics.org/ ;
- the Declaration of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ANRI) https://rasep.ru/images/docs/declaration_anri_2016.pdf ;
- the norms of Chapter 70 “Copyright” of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation http://www.gk-rf.ru/glava70.
The requirements for compliance with publication ethics in the preparation and publication of the journal apply to all participants in the editorial and publishing process - authors, editors, reviewers, members of the editorial board, members of the editorial council, founder, publisher, etc.
The editors of the journal are responsible for making decisions on publication, ensuring the validity of their decision by involving leading scientists of VNIIDAD and third-party specialists as reviewers in the discussion of articles submitted to the editors.
The decision on publication is based on the uniqueness, reliability, scientific significance and relevance of the work under consideration.
The editors of the journal reserve the right to reject the publication of an article in the event of a violation of the rules specified below.
- Journal’s editors responsibility
1.1 Journal editors are responsible to the authors, reviewers, readers and the scientific community, to the founder and publisher, and to the general public for making the final decision on publication and acknowledge this responsibility.
1.2 Editors make objective decisions independent of conflict of interest and ensure a fair and effective peer review process.
1.3 Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.
1.4 The editor should not disclose information about an accepted manuscript before its publication, except to participants in the editorial and publishing process.
1.5 Editors do not work with articles in which they have a conflict of interest.
1.6 Editors make every effort to resolve any conflict situation that may arise during the publication process.
1.7 If necessary, editors publish information on corrections, refutations and retractions of articles on the journal’s website.
1.8 The editors of the journal do not publish the final version of the article without its approval from the authors.
— When making a decision on publication, the editor of a scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the data presented and the scientific significance of the work under consideration.
— Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and associated with possible advantages must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
— The editor must not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
— The editor, together with the publisher, must not leave unanswered claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and, if a conflict situation is identified, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.
— The editor, together with the publisher, must not allow the publication of works by the same author in three or more issues of the same scientific journal in a row, if there are works by other authors ready for publication that meet all editorial requirements.
- Journal’s reviewers responsibilities
2.1 The reviewer evaluates his/her workload before agreeing to review the manuscript and agrees to review only if there is sufficient time for high-quality work.
2.2 In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer notifies the editors about this before starting work on the article.
2.3 The reviewer does not transfer information about the article and the data it contains to third parties.
2.4 The reviewer does not use the information obtained from the article for personal or commercial purposes.
2.5 The reviewer does not draw conclusions about the quality of the article based on subjective data: personal attitude towards the author, his gender, age, religion, political views, etc.
2.6 The reviewer uses only correct expressions and explanations regarding the article, does not resort to personal attacks.
The reviewer examines the author's scientific materials, thus his actions must be unbiased, consisting of the following principles:
— The manuscript received for review must be considered a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review or discussion to third parties who are not authorized by the editors.
— The reviewer must give an objective and reasoned assessment of the presented research results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
— Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review must not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
— A reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, must inform the editor about this before starting work on the article, with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript.
- Journal’s authors responsibilities
3.1 The author submits an article, which have not previously been published in another publication. The author has the right to use a preprint of an unpublished manuscript of the article, placed in the archive (repository) of preprints before or in parallel with the preparation of the article for publication, but the editorial board of the journal should be notified of this. If the article is based on previously published materials of a non-article nature or materials presented on the Internet, the editorial board of the journal should be notified of this.
3.2 The author does not submit one article for consideration to different journals.
3.3 The author notifies the Editorial Board of a potential conflict of interest in the Application for Publication of the article, and also places a declaration of the presence or absence of a conflict of interest immediately after the text of the article before the references.
3.4 The author takes the necessary measures to ensure the correctness of the citations presented in the article.
3.5 The author correctly cites his/her previous works, avoids self-plagiarism in the manuscript and artificially increasing the volume of publications (salami-slicing).
3.6 The author correctly corresponds with the reviewer through the editor and responds as quickly as possible to comments and remarks, if they arise.
3.7 If necessary, the authors correct the data presented in the article.
3.8 The authors must promptly and without fail confirm that they have read the final version of their articles before sending the journal layout for printing.
3.9 The list of authors includes only those individuals who have made a significant contribution to the study.
3.10 All co-authors must provide written consent to submit the article to the journal (see Application for Publication of an Article and Rules for Submitting Scientific Articles for Publication, paragraphs 4.2–4.5).
3.11 The contact author notifies his/her co-authors of changes and proposals from the editorial board of the journal and does not make decisions regarding the article unilaterally, without the written consent of all co-authors.
The author (or group of authors) understands that they bear primary responsibility for published materials content, the novelty and reliability of scientific research results, which implies compliance with the following principles:
— Authors of the article must provide reliable research results. Obviously erroneous, scientifically questionable or falsified statements are unacceptable.
— Authors must guarantee completely original research results in the submitted manuscript. Borrowed fragments or statements must be formatted with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformatted quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to other people's research results, are unethical and unacceptable and may result in rejection/retraction of the article.
— It is necessary to acknowledge the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the study in the Acknowledgments (placed between the Key words and For citation) and/or in references to those works that were important during the study.
— Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that has already been sent to another journal and is under consideration. It is strictly forbidden to submit for publication an article that has already been published in another journal, collection, or monograph.
— All persons who made a significant contribution to the study must be listed as co-authors of the article. The specific role of each co-author is indicated in the Authors' Contribution immediately after the text of the article before the references. It is unacceptable to list persons who did not participate in the study among the co-authors.
— If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the consideration stage or after its publication, he/she must notify the editors of the journal as soon as possible.
- Publisher's liability
4.1 The publisher supports scientific communications, invests in the publication process, and is responsible for compliance with all modern recommendations in the published work.
4.2 The publisher does not influence the editorial policy of the journal.
4.3 The publisher provides legal support to the editorial board of the journal if necessary.
4.4 The publisher ensures the timely release of the next issues of the journal.
4.5 The publisher publishes corrections, explanations and retracts those articles in which violations of scientific ethics or inaccurate information were revealed.
Conflict of interest
To avoid violations of publication ethics, conflicts of interest of all parties involved in the process of publishing an article should be excluded. A conflict of interest arises if an author, reviewer, or member of the editorial board has financial, scientific, or personal relationships that may influence their actions.
In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the journal, each of the parties has the following responsibilities.
The editor is obliged to:
– refer the article for review to another member of the editorial board if the initially appointed reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted article;
– request information from all participants in the article publication process about the possibility of competing interests;
– decide on the publication of information specified in the author's letter concerning a conflict of scientific and / or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may affect the assessment of the published work by the reader or the scientific community;
– ensure the publication of corrections if information about a conflict of interest was received after the publication of the article.
The author is obliged to:
– indicate his/her affiliation work;
– indicate the funding source for the research (or lack thereof) and place a declaration of funding source (or lack thereof) immediately after the article text before the references;
– list known and potential sources of conflict of interest in the Publication Application and in the declaration of the presence or absence of a conflict of interest, which is placed immediately after the article text before the references;
– if there is no conflict of interest, clearly state this in the Publication Application and in the declaration of the presence or absence of a conflict of interest, which is placed immediately after the article text before the references.
The reviewer is obliged to:
– inform the editor-in-chief of the presence of a conflict of interest (dual obligations, competing interests) and refuse to review the article.