- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
The purpose of the journal is to create a scientific discussion platform for peer discussion of problems and the development of optimal solutions in the field of international cooperation, joint research, and publication of its results. Foreign scientists and experts are invited to publishing and reviewing of the materials submitted for consideration.
The scientific concept involves the publication of scientific papers, including research insights and scholarly results, discussion articles and reviews, in the field of political science, sociology, world economy, cultural studies. The substantive and thematic profile of the journal includes topics reflecting international and regional processes, political, economic, social, cultural aspects of international relations, interstate and intercultural communications, international security and sustainable development.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Open Access Policy
Russia and the World: Scientific Dialogue (Russia & World: Ss. Dialogue) is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication. The open access is granted in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition: all articles are available free of any charge 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
Manuscripts received by the Russia & World: Sc. Dialogue editorial office undergo a mandatory procedure of double-blind reviewing. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
The first stage is carried out by an editorial staff member and includes a preliminary assessment of the manuscript for compliance with (a) the profile of the journal and (b) guidelines approved by the editorial board, (c) checking for unattributed borrowing or excessive self-citation, (d) references and (e) the logic of the presentation of the material in accordance with the specified profile.
Based on the assessment, the manuscript can be returned to the author for revision with a list of the editor's comments or sent to reviewing experts for peer-review without any information about the authors of the manuscript. At least one of the experts must have a scientific title of at least Doctor of Science in the relevant field and be the author of significant publications of the corresponding direction and profile in leading peer-reviewed journals.
Each expert has the right to refuse an examination of a manuscript in the event of an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Upon the scrutiny and based on the results of the peer-review of the manuscript, the reviewer the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to ask the author(s) to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns of the reviewer before final decision is reached;
- to invite another expert to review the manuscript, final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
- to reject the manuscript outright.
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. The manuscript received from the authors with the corrections is re-sent for review.
Should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript, we politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing. In case the author fails to do so within 2 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, editorial board can involve representatives of the editorial council in resolving the dispute, or send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict at the meeting of the editorial board.
The decision to publish or reject a manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewing, of which the editorial board duly notifies the author via email. An article that is not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board cannot not accepted for reconsideration. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.
Publishing Ethics
The editorial board of the journal “Russia and the World: Scientific Dialogue” is guided in its activities by the ethical principles of scientific periodicals and the set of principles of the "Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications" developed and approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE), requiring ethical behaviour and full compliance with the following rules from all participants in the publishing process.
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Russia & World: Sc. Dialogue” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines and the general ethical principles for peer-reviewed journals.
1. Duties of Editors
1.1. In accordance with the regulation on the ethics of scientific publications, the members of editorial board are personally and independently responsible for decision on publication. The credibility of any submitted manuscript and its scientific relevance should always underlie the decision to publish. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The members of the editorial board are guided by these rules, the Charter of the journal and the current legal requirements in relation to defamation, copyright, legality and plagiarism. Members of the editorial board can consult among themselves, with members of the editorial board and the editorial council, external experts and reviewers when deciding on a publication.
1.2. Fair play: editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
1.3. Confidentiality: neither editors nor the members of editorial board may 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.
1.4. Unpublished data disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the research of any editor or member of the editorial board. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal advantage.
1.5. Editors should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board to review and 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 (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
1.6. Vigilance over published record: any editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the editor-in-chief to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
1.7. The editor-in-chief or his deputy in conjunction with the founder take adequate retaliatory measures in the event of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures involve interaction with the authors of the manuscript and a reasoned response to complaints or requests, but do not exclude interaction with relevant organizations, institutes and research centers.
2. Duties of Reviewers
2.1. 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. The 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 of the materials submitted for consideration.
2.2. Promptness: аny selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the submitted manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
2.3. Confidentiality: any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document: the reviewer has no right to delegate the task or discuss work with third parties except as authorised by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.
2.4. Standard and objectivity: reviewer must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their opinions with supporting arguments.
2.5. Acknowledgement of Sources: reviewers should identify the significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editor-in-chief or his deputy to the discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and any other published work within the scientific competence of the reviewer.
2.6. 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. 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.
3. Duties of Authors
3.1. Reporting standards: authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Reviews and discussion papers should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
3.2. Data access and retention: during the examination and preparation of the manuscript for publication, the authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3.3. Originality and plagiarism: sure 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. Plagiarism in any form from presenting someone else's work as the author's to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work (without attribution) or to claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research is unethical and unacceptable.
3.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: 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. Publishing a particular type of article (for example, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases, provided certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of interested journals can agree on a secondary publication with the same data and interpretation of the research results as in the originally published work. A bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. More information on acceptable forms of secondary (republishing) publication can be found at icmje.org.
3.5. Acknowledgement of sources: the contributions of others should always be recognized. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented. Data obtained privately, for example, through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluations or grants, should not be used without the express written permission of the authors of the confidential work.
3.7. Authorship: 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. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. Authors must ensure (1) that all participants who have made significant contributions to the research are represented as co-authors and (2) that persons who did not participate in the research are not named as co-authors, and (3) that all co-authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
3.8. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, shareholding, royalties, expert opinions, patent applications or patent registrations, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
3.9. Fundamental errors in published works: if the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the author must inform the editor-in-chief or his deputy about this and interact with the publisher in order to promptly withdraw the publication and correct errors. If the editor-in-chief, or publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains such errors, the author must promptly or correct the paper.
4. Duties of the Publisher
4.1. The publisher must follow principles and procedures to promote ethical conduct by editorial board members, reviewers, and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The publisher should support the journal editors in he review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers this contributes to the proper discharge of editorial responsibilities. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retraction procedures and error correction. The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.
Founder
ANO «National communications development research institution»
Author fees
No submission or publication charges. Publication is free of charge.
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
The editorial board of the journal “Russia and the World: Scientific Dialogue”, when reviewing an article, can check the material using the Antiplagiat system. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the article has not been previously published or accepted for publication in any another scientific journal. When linking to an article published in the journal “Russia and the World: Scientific Dialogue”, the publisher asks to post a link (full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
Prior to acceptance and publication in “Russia & World: Sc. Dialogue”, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites that are not related to any other publishers or scientific editions.
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher and publication of advertising materials.
