Aim and Scope

The goals of the journal:

• publication of scientific research based on archival documents, analyzing events, phenomena and processes of national and world history;
  
  
• introduction to scientific circulation and analysis of previously unknown archival documents – sources on the domestic and world history;
  
  
• synthesis of the modern experience of using archival documents in historical research.

The purposes of the journal are:

• study, analysis and discussion on the actual scientific problems of historical archival studies, the archival component of research work in the field of history and the importance of documentary heritage in the system of cultural values;
  
  
• archives and informational support of historical science;

• archive as a basic element of the information infrastructure of historical science;
  
  
• the humanitarian strategy of the communicative function of archives;
  
  
• a historian and an archivist: mutually beneficial interaction in the field of informational support of historical science;
  
  
• interdisciplinary dialogue, "harmonious combination" of the results of activities and interests of historians and archivists (joint activity of historians and archivists on the basis of rapprochement between researcher’s and archivist’s tasks, as well as mutual penetration of their interests and working methods);
  
  
• relations between historians and archivists within the framework of the "archive-researcher" system;
   
• the historical, timeless value of a retrospective document;
   
• identification of the role and place of historical and documentary heritage, stored in archives, manuscript departments of museums and libraries, in the common system of cultural values;
  
  
• analysis of changes in the activities of archives associated with the introduction of new information technologies, and the disclosure of the mission of archives in the rapidly changing environment of the information society.

Section Policies

Publication Frequency

4 номера в год

Open Access Policy

"History and Archives" 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

1. All articles submitted to the editorial board of the “History and Archives” undergo a mandatory double-blind peer-review process. The author’s identity is not revealed to the reviewers, and vice versa; manuscripts and recommendations for correcting or rewriting article are sent by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

2. Each submission for publication is checked for suitability when received by the editorial board, and may be rejected without review for any of the following reasons:

1) if it is obviously of insufficient scientific quality, or is missing important sections;

2) if it is outside the scope of the journal;

3) in case of high similarity rate (>25%);

4) if it contains the plagiarized text.

3. Peer reviews are performed by members of the editorial board and leading experts in the corresponding area of historical and archival science. All reviewers must have publications on the subject of reviewed paper during the previous 3 years. The editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief choose experts for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2–4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.

4. Each article is sent to two reviewers.

5. Reviewers are asked to comment on the following aspects of a manuscript:

- Significance or importance of the topic;

- Originality and significance of contribution;

- Scientific soundness and clarity of presentation;

- Coverage of appropriate existing literature;

- Adequacy of methodology;

- Validity of the arguments.

6. The reviewer is expected to indicate one of the following options:

- to accept the paper for publication in its present state;

- to accept the paper for publication after the suggested changes have been made;

- to reject the paper.

7. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and send the corrected manuscript within this period for final evaluation by the reviewer.

8. We politely request that the editor should be notified in writing form if the author decides to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a letter from editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

9. If the author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief could send the manuscript for the additional review by another expert.

10. The editorial board reaches the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript on the hearing after discussing the reviewers’ recommendations. Editor-in-chief rules final solution in the case of conflict. The editorial staff notifies the authors of the final decision via e-mail. The editorial board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.

11. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.

12. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts are kept in the editorial office for 5 years. In case of the corresponding request, the editorial board could send a copy of the review to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Indexation

Articles in "History and Archives" are indexed by several systems:

• 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).
• Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
• WorldCat
• Cyberleninka
• Library of Congress
• VINITI RAS

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "History and Archives" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

1. Introduction

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 and the publisher for sponsored journal: "History and Archives"

1.2. Publisher 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.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously and recognises the responsibility as the keeper of those records, according to the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "History and Archives"  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 "History and Archives" 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. 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 any editorial staff of "History and Archives" 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.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. 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.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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 investigations – 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.

3.    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 referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "History and Archives" 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. 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

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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

All articles and reviews should present valid, significant and original study and should be formatted in compliance with the requirements of the journal.

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

4.3.1. 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.

4.3.2. An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4. 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.

4.5. Authorship of the Paper

4.5.1. 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.

4.5.2. 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.

4.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.6.1. 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. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.6.2. 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.

4.7. 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 "History and Archives" journal and cooperate with Publisher 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.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "History and Archives" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support "History and Archives" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).

Founder

• Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH)

Author fees

Publication in "History and Archives" 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.

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

"History and Archives" 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 "History and Archives", 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 "History and Archives" 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)

ISSN 2658-6541 (Print)