Editorial Policies

Section Policies

CONVENTIUS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

ACADEMIA

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SCOLA

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SYMPOSIUM

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

HERMENEUTICA

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

METHODICA

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

POLITEIA

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

REFLECTIO

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

IN MEMORIAM

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

CULTURA

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

MUSEUM

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

PROLOGOS

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

REVIEW

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

LINGUISTIC RESEARCHES

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

CULTURE OF DAILY OCCURRENCE

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

EXPERIENCE AND PROJECTS OF PRESERVATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

JUBILAEUS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

VULNUS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

An anonymous ("blind") peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of Studia Culturae. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers 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.

2. The reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:

  • to accept the paper in its present state;
  • to invite the author to revise the 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.

3. 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 resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.

4. We politely request that the editor to be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

5. If the author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding the revision of the manuscript, the editorial board invites another specialist for further reviewing. The editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority upon the hearing of reviewers’ recommendations.

6. The editorial board reaches a 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 and notifies the author by e-mail.

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

8. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as a final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.

9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.

 

Open Access Policy

Studia Culturae is open-access (OA) - online and free of charge journal.

OA is granted with the following restrictions:

  • We do not permit commercial re-use and derivative works. 
  • Studia Culturae has 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. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
  • OA is compatible with copyright, peer review, revenue (even profit), print, preservation, prestige, quality, career-advancement, indexing, and other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature.
  • Studia Culturae is not free to produce or publish.

Studia Culturaefollows gold OA standard:

  • Studia Culturae conducts peer review.
  • Studia Culturaeis for-profit.
  • Studia Culturae charges no author-side fees at all. But we expect our non-native English authors to provide pre-published professional proof-reading of their articles. 
  • Studia Culturae provides OA to its peer-reviewed research articles, without delay. 

 

Publishing Ethics

The Editorial Council and Editorial Board of Studia Сulturae follow the Copyright law of the Russian Federation (Chapter 70), international standards of publication ethics elaborated by the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the regulations that were worked out at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22–24, 2010), which set out international standards for responsible research publication. They also take into consideration the experience of the leading scientific journals and publishers.

The Editorial Council and Editorial Board adhere strictly to these ethical standards in their activities and relationships with all participants in the publication process: authors, reviewers, editors, publishing houses, distributors, and readers. Below please find the list of ethical standards that should be followed by authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the publication of the research materials.

Ethical standards for authors

• The author has a responsibility to ensure that the reported research results are accurate. Authors should avoid making knowingly and willfully false or fraudulent statements. The basic data should not contain any mistakes.

• Authors should adhere to publication requirements that the submitted work is original and has not been published, either totally or in part, elsewhere. The work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one journal until the end of its consideration.

• Authors should not submit the paper that has been published in the present journal to another publication.

• Plagiarism of any kind is impermissible. Direct citations and wording of any text or the essence of a concept should be properly acknowledged and referenced. Data obtained through oral and written communications with third persons should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgment.

• Authors should declare any potential conflicts of interest (employment, consulting, honorarium acceptance, or others that might be perceived as influencing research results or inferences proposed in the work) and indicate the funding source of the research (if available).

• Researchers who made a substantial contribution to the design and execution of the work, as well as interpretation of the obtained results, should be listed as authors. All authors should have read, and be familiar with, the reported work, and should approve the submission of the paper and the accepted version of the publication. Other contributors to the research, or to the preparation of the publication, should be listed in an acknowledgment section.

• Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.

• Authors should alert the editor or publisher promptly if significant errors are discovered in any paper after publication, and work with the editor to correct the paper.

• Authors should work with the editor during reviewing and preparation of the manuscript for publication. They should respond to reviewer comment in a professional and timely manner. In case of disagreement with reviewer comment, authors should forward their objections to the editor, together with the grounds for them. Improvements should be made within two months upon sending the reviewer comment to the author by e-mail. Authors should inform the editor if they choose not to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer ethics

• The reviewer should consider the work submitted for publication objectively. Criticism of the author’s personality is impermissible. Reviewer comment should be clear and well-grounded.

• The identities of the reviewers are confidential.

• A reviewer who is unsure of his or her objectivity in the assessment of the work, because of any potential competing interests with those of the author or funding organizations, should decline the invitation to review the submission.

• Unpublished data from the reviewed paper cannot be used by the reviewer without the appropriate written permission of the author.

• The reviewer should point to the absence of references to the published works that are significant to the content of the analyzed paper in the manuscript and bibliographic list. The reviewer should attract the editor’s attention to any noted coincidences of the analyzed manuscript with any other publication or submission to another journal.

Editor ethics

Editors are responsible for the publication of authors’ works. The decision to accept or decline a submission rests on an assessment of the integrity and scientific significance of the presented work, its compliance with the journal’s subject area, and effective legal standards concerning copyright and plagiarism.

• Editors should ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review of submitted scientific works. By the decision of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, a manuscript may be subject to additional peer review.

• The content of the works is assessed independently of the racial, ethnic, national, gender or religious background of the author, as well as of sexual orientation or political views.

• The submitted manuscript is regarded as confidential. The Executive Secretary will authorize the people who have access to the manuscript.

• Unpublished data from the submitted paper cannot be used by the editorial staff, reviewers or members of the Editorial Board in their research, nor transmitted to third persons without the author’s written permission.

• Editors should not permit plagiarized work to be published.

• Editors should reconcile corrections to the manuscript with the author.

• Editors should respond to any complaint concerning consideration or publication of submissions. In case of conflict, an editor should ensure restoration of the infringed rights.

• Editors should ensure publication of corrections (errata), with apologies, when genuine errors in published work are pointed out by the author or third persons.