The editorial office of the “Historical and Philological Journal” is guided by the principles of copyright protection of scientific works according to the legislation of the Republic of Armenia and generally accepted international standards, which are reflected in the COPE section of recommendations (see:http://publicationethics.org/ resources/ international-standards).
In order to prevent unfair practice in the editorial activity (plagiarism, submission of false information, etc.) and to ensure high quality of scientific publications and to provide public recognition of the scientific results of the authors, the editorial office of the “Historical and Philological Journal”, the editorial board, the authors, reviewers, have to follow the standards of ethics so that to prevent possible violations. The ethics guideline provides intellectual property rights of the authors, improves the quality of the journal, excludes possible excessive use of the copyrighted material. The editorial office of the journal is not responsible for the copyright of the published materials (text, photo, drawing, table, etc.) and expressed ideas/viewpoints; the authors are responsible in this regard.
The content of articles generated by AI, the links of which cannot be checked, will be rejected by the editorial board. Similarly, the borrowings without references will be considered plagiarism.
An author is the person who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the scientific work submitted for publication. Co-author is the person who has made an equal contribution to the research. It is unacceptable to mention in the article the names of those who did not take part in the research. However, all the people who somehow participated in the research work should also be properly mentioned. According to the COPE authorship guidelines, individuals who make contribution to the research work, but do not meet the authorship criteria should be mentioned with the heading “Thank You” after getting their prior written permission.
If the research or publication was made possible through specific funding, then appropriate notes should be made (sources of the financial support, numbers of the grants or references). It will promote transparency of the work and will allow the reader to assess any potential bias.
The author of the article assumes obligation to present the article according to the criteria required by the “Historical and Philological Journal” and provide with brief information about the identity of the author or authors. A special attention should be paid to citations. In case of inaccuracies, they must be corrected by the author before publication. Any form of manipulation will be considered inappropriate and unacceptable by the editorial board.
Unnecessary self-references are not encouraged.
The author of the article should avoid duplication of the work. If there are parts having been published previously, the author must refer to the earlier work indicating the differences. The article must contain references to the works that have had significant impact on the research.
The author should not submit the original work that has been offered to another journal and is under consideration, nor should it be a version that has already been published.
The author should respect the efforts of the editorial board and reviewers and correct inaccurences they have indicated in the article. In case of disagreement with the observations of the reviewers, the author should scientifically establish his/her perspective in written form.
The editorial office assumes obligation to inform the author of accepting or rejecting the article in the shortest time (within 30 days) protecting the reviewer privacy and ensuring confidentiality of the information on the submitted material.
When preparing the article for publication, the editor must adhere to the views of the author. Any substantial changes and clarifications made to the text are agreed upon with the author. In case of disagreement with editorial interference, the parties have the right to refuse publication of the material or to reach a mutual agreement.
Once the editorial work is complete, the author reviews the final text, before it goes to press, by visiting the editorial office personally or reading the pdf version of the text and giving his/her consent.
Notе: the articles of the journal containing disputable points, factual errors or inaccurate wording are supposed to be subject to post-print discussions with participation of the author and the editorial board. If necessary, they will be published in the next issue of the journal.
The article that is subject to complaints and appeals is sent for additional expert evaluation to clarify the special problem or problems that have caused disagreement. The editorial office and the editorial board make a final decision based on the opinion of the experts. In other cases, the article is finalized by mutual agreement of the author and the editorial office.
The editor-in-chief assumes obligation to act within the framework of ethical provisions and ensure its consistent application in the relation between the editorial office, author, reviewer and editorial board.
The editor-in-chief must evaluate the intellectual content of the article, regardless of the author's race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences.
The editor-in-chief must not authorize the publication of an article if there is sufficient evidence to suppose that it is plagiarism.
The editor-in-chief determines whether the articles to be published are in accordance with the following criteria:
- compliance of the article with the content orientation of the journal,
- relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the submitted article,
- simplicity, reliability of scientific results, and completeness of conclusions.
The editor-in-chief assumes obligation:
- to take all necessary steps to ensure the high quality of the published materials and ensure the confidentiality of the personal information,
- to take into account the recommendations of reviewers when making a final decision on the publication of the article,
- to justify decisions on the acceptance or rejection of the article.
At least, two specialists of the same field review all the articles submitted to the ‘‘Historical and Philological Journal’’. The reviewers present their opinion and suggestions on the articles to the editor-in-chief. The article received for review is a confidential document that cannot be transferred to a third party for discussion or study without the permission of the editorial board.
The reviewer assumes obligation to guide by the principles of confidentiality. In case of detecting plagiarism, the reviewer is obliged to justify his/her position and express an unbiased opinion pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of the work, the scientific sources not taken into account by the author; the reviewer’s opinion should be presented on a special form provided by the editorial office. The work must be signed and dated by the reviewer (verbal versions of the review and versions with notes on the article text are invalid). In the event of a conflict of interests, the reviewer must notify the editorial office and the editorial board of the problem. The editorial board, including the members of the foreign expert council, have the right to an advisory vote and can take part in evaluating the scientific significance, the relevance and novelty of the article and make unbiased decisions based on the professional level and quality of the articles. At the request of the editor-in-chief, they also participate in the discussions of the content of each issue of the journal expressing their professional opinion.
medias_attachmentsbottom_photos