Peer Review Process

The review aims to enhance the quality of the articles published in the «European historical studies» andmeasure the quality thereof by the experts.

1. The procedure of the review is anonymous both for the reviewer and the authors and is carried out in the shape of the double-blind review.
2. The reviewers shall keep up with the demands of the Committee on Publication Ethics, be unbiased and objective.
3. The editorial board of the bulletin is guided by the following principle: each scholar shall fulfill some reviewing and therefore contribute to the method of analysis as of the basic mechanism of the research work and that of publication preparations.
4. Should the reviewer chosen doubt about his or her qualification meeting the level of research work shown in the writing, he or she shall send the writing back.
5. The reviewer shall always be objective about the quality of a writing, its theoretical background, the interpretation of the material presented and the narrative form thereof. He or she as well shall introduce the accordance thereof with the scientific and stylistic norms in force.
6. The reviewer shall be mindful of the possible competitive interests, should the writing submitted be closely related to his or her published writing or with that in progress. In case of doubts the reviewer shall sent the writing back without reviewing it and mentioning the competitive interests.
7. The reviewer is not entitled to appraise the writing of an author or of a collaborator with whom he or she is bound personally or professionally, should such bounds influence the review of a writing submitted.
8. The reviewer shall treat the writing being reviewed as a confidential document: he or she shall not show the writing to the others or discuss it with his or her colleagues. An exception to this is the case of the reviewer’s need of a special consultation.
9. The reviewers shall explain and rationalize his or her reflections upon the writing to the author in order to fully reveal the critique. Any claims of some observations, notes and conclusions having been published before shall be followed by references to the respective sources.
10. The reviewer shall note any cases of insufficient or inappropriate citing of the works of other scholars related to the article reviewed. He or she as well shall be mindful that the critique concerning inappropriate citing of the reviewer’s works by the author might come across prejudicial.
11. The reviewer shall draw the editor’s attention to any possible resemblance of a writing reviewed to any article published or any writing submitted simultaneously to another press organ.
12. The reviewer shall deliver the report timely to the editorial board.
13. The reviewers are not entitled to use or disclose the information unpublished, neither are they entitled to make arguments and interpretations expressed in the article public without the author’s permission. In case when such information reveals some reviewer’s researches might be futile, the suspension of disclosing unpublished materials by the reviewer is compatible with the norms of ethics.

During the peer review process, editors and reviewers are looking for:
1. Whether the theme of the writing proposed meets the profile of the present Journal.
2. Whether the theme of the writing proposed is current and weather it is theoretically or operationally valuable.
3. Whether the content of the writing corresponds the article heading.
4. Whether the writing is academically novel.
5. Whether the scientific argumentation of the present writing is logical and convincing.
6. Which advantages and drawbacks the writing submitted comprises.
7. Whether the writing meets the typography requirements of the Journal.
8. Which amendments and updates shall be made by the author (if needed).

Only writings meeting the present Journal`s typescript requirements and those not calling for comments and not drawing objections of the editorial board on the primary phase of control are subject to reviewing. Writings not meeting the abovementioned requirements shall not be reviewed. In case of calling for comments to the article submitted, the writing shall be sent back to the author for revision and amendment. The reviewing is held confidentially for a period of a month after the date of submission of the writing.

Common reasons of rejecting the article
• Borrowing without mentioning the source material.
• The article submitted has been previously published in another journal (electronic issues and web sites included).
• The article does not meet the typescript requirements.
• The inaptitude of references in the text.
• Any part of metadata, contact information or address missing or incomplete.
• The research advisor’s report or recommendation signed and with the seal affixed not being attached (for the authors without a degree).
• UDC / JEL missing.
• List of sources and literature missing.
• English summary volume insufficient.
• The expert’s negative review being delivered.

The authors already received negative expert reviews (caught in plagiarism, their articles being recommended by the expert to be published in another journal, other reasons for rejections), are kindly asked not to submit their writings (same / new) for a period of a year in accordance with the International rules of publications in scientific journals.

Author Disclosure and Obligations
The author or the team of contributors are held fully liable for the novelty and study validity which provides meeting the following requirements:
• The authors shall present the results of their research work understandably, accurately and without fabricating the existing facts
• The authors shall accurately note the research methods, avoiding ambiguity, so the results obtained can be verified and confirmed
• The authors shall cling to demands of shaping their respective works: the latter shall be original, not previously published in other journals, no plagiarism allowed
• The authors bear communal responsibility for the writings submitted and published
• Persons not contributing to the research process shall not be named for ethical reasons
• The author shall inform the editorial board about material errors and inaccuracies revealed in the work published
• Materials incitement of ethnic, national, religious and interracial hatred shall not be accepted
The discrimination of any kind shall be prohibited