Introduction
The editorial board of the journal "Sociology of Power" takes a responsible approach to the task of maintaining scientific reputation and is responsible for their compliance with the highest standards. The editorial board of the journal relies, in particular, on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), the Russian Association of Science Editors and Publishers (RASEP), as well as on the experience of reputable international journals and publishing houses. The ethical standards of our journal concern all parties involved in the publication (authors, journal editors, reviewers, publishing house and scientific society).
Privacy Statement
The Editorial Board of Sociology of Power warrants that the authors’ personal data will be used solely for correspondence with the authors and publication details and will not be shared with third parties.
Best Practice Guidelines for Authors
The author submitting a manuscript for consideration to the journal "Sociology of Power" confirms that it is original, i.e. has not been previously published in other periodicals and is not under consideration in another journal. If the work is based on material previously published as a report, preprint, or working paper, this must be notified to the editors.
Requirements for publication of research results
If the article contains the results of original research, the author should provide a detailed report on the work performed, as well as objective arguments in favor of its relevance. The article must provide accurate data confirming the results obtained. The article must contain details and references necessary to repeat the work performed. Submission of knowingly false facts is considered a violation of the ethical code and is unacceptable.
Reviews and articles must be objective and contain verified information.
During the review of the manuscript, authors may be asked to provide raw data related to the manuscript for review. Authors should be prepared to make such information publicly available where feasible and in any event be prepared to retain such data for an adequate period of time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
An author should not submit for consideration to a journal an article that has already been published.
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published article, the author should inform the “Sociology of Power” journal editor and cooperate with s/he in order to retract the article or correct it. If the editor or publisher receives information from a third party that a published article contains significant errors, the author should promptly retract the article or correct it.
The editors of the journal are committed to assisting the scholarly community in all aspects of the journal's publication ethics policy, especially in cases of suspected duplicate submission or plagiarism.
The manuscript of the work can be checked by the systems of automatic determination of the originality of the text Antiplagiat, "iThenticate". In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editors act in accordance with the rules of COPE.
Authorship
The editors of the journal "Sociology of Power" adhere to the following criteria for authorship:
1. Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the scientific work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;
2. Drafting the manuscript or revising it critically, adding valuable intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the published version of the manuscript;
4. Agreement to accept accountability for all aspects of the work and ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work can be adequately investigated and resolved.
In addition to responsibility for those parts of the work for which the author has performed, s/he should be aware of which co-authors are responsible for other specific components of the work. In addition, authors should be confident in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. All persons listed as authors must meet all four criteria for being an author, and all persons who meet these four criteria must be identified as authors.
Persons who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.
Contributions of Authors and Non-Authors
The Acknowledgments section may include people who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria, such as: those who supported the research, acted as mentors, assisted in collecting data, coordinated the research, etc.
To correctly identify contributions, journal authors may use one of the schemes recommended by COPE:
General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions
CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy
If accepted for publication, the article is placed in open access. Copyright remains with the authors.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other significant conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the outcome of the evaluation of their manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting services, honoraria, paid expertise, patents, grants, and other funding. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Journal Editor and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the Publisher learns 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.
Requirements for publication of research results
If the article contains the results of original research, the author should provide a detailed report on the work performed, as well as objective arguments in favor of its relevance. The article must provide accurate data confirming the results obtained. The article must contain details and references necessary to repeat the work performed. Submission of knowingly false facts is considered a violation of the ethical code and is unacceptable.
Reviews and articles must be objective and contain verified information.
During the review of the manuscript, authors may be asked to provide raw data related to the manuscript for review. Authors should be prepared to make such information publicly available where feasible and in any event be prepared to retain such data for an adequate period of time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
An author should not submit for consideration to a journal an article that has already been published.
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published article, the author should inform the “Sociology of Power” journal editor and cooperate with s/he in order to retract the article or correct it. If the editor or publisher receives information from a third party that a published article contains significant errors, the author should promptly retract the article or correct it.
The editors of the journal are committed to assisting the scholarly community in all aspects of the journal's publication ethics policy, especially in cases of suspected duplicate submission or plagiarism.
The manuscript of the work can be checked by the systems of automatic determination of the originality of the text Antiplagiat, "iThenticate". In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editors act in accordance with the rules of COPE.
Authorship
The editors of the journal "Sociology of Power" adhere to the following criteria for authorship:
1. Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the scientific work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;
2. Drafting the manuscript or revising it critically, adding valuable intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the published version of the manuscript;
4. Agreement to accept accountability for all aspects of the work and ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work can be adequately investigated and resolved.
In addition to responsibility for those parts of the work for which the author has performed, s/he should be aware of which co-authors are responsible for other specific components of the work. In addition, authors should be confident in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. All persons listed as authors must meet all four criteria for being an author, and all persons who meet these four criteria must be identified as authors.
Persons who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.
Contributions of Authors and Non-Authors
The Acknowledgments section may include people who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria, such as: those who supported the research, acted as mentors, assisted in collecting data, coordinated the research, etc.
To correctly identify contributions, journal authors may use one of the schemes recommended by COPE:
General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions
CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy
If accepted for publication, the article is placed in open access. Copyright remains with the authors.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other significant conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the outcome of the evaluation of their manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting services, honoraria, paid expertise, patents, grants, and other funding. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Journal Editor and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the Publisher learns 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.
Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editor
These guidelines are consistent with the journal's policies and the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Guide to Best Practice for Journal Editors).
Decision on the publication of an article
The editor-in-chief / guest editor responsible for the journal, guided by the opinion of the editorial board and reviewers, makes a decision on the possibility of publishing an article in the journal.
This decision is always based on the verification of the reliability of the work and its importance for researchers and readers.
The editors of the journal do not publish the final version of the article without its approval by the authors.
The editor ensures the formation of issues based on materials accepted for publication in the general queue, taking into account the priorities for the formation of thematic sections and issues. The editors have the right to adjust the order of publications in accordance with the topics of the issues being prepared.
The editors do not have the right to impose on authors citations of articles previously published in the journal "Sociology of Power" for the purpose of artificially improving scientometric indicators.
The editor has the right not to enter into correspondence with the authors after presenting them with the results of the final examination.
Fairness
The editors evaluate submitted works on their intellectual content, regardless of the author's race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political views.
Confidentiality
The editor-in-chief of the journal and the editorial board staff must not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial board consultants, and the publisher.
Disclosure of information and conflicts of interest
• Unpublished materials contained in the submitted work cannot be used in the work of the editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board, reviewers, and other staff involved in working on the material sent for consideration, without the written consent of the author.
• Confidential information obtained during the review process is not subject to disclosure or use for personal gain.
• The editor-in-chief undertakes to refuse to consider the submitted work if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the authors and organizations associated with this work (the functions of the editor-in-chief can be assumed by an assistant editor or another member of the editorial board).
• The Editor-in-Chief is obliged to require all authors to disclose any conflicts of interest and to publish corrections if any are discovered after publication. If necessary, other appropriate action may be taken, such as publishing a retraction or expression of concern.
• The Editor-in-Chief is obliged to ensure that the peer-review procedures for articles submitted to the journal "Sociology of Power" are followed. Works are accepted for publication in supplements solely on the basis of their academic value, and not for commercial reasons.
• Book reviews and translations are not peer-reviewed; decisions on their publication may be made by the editorial board of the journal without involving external experts.
Citation of the journal which published the submitted article
The editor-in-chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board of the journal should under no circumstances force authors to cite one of the scientific journals published by RANEPA, the editor-in-chief's own publications, and/or members of the Editorial Board as a prerequisite for acceptance of an article manuscript for publication. Any recommendations to cite papers should be based on their scientific significance and aim to improve the material presented.
Ethical complaints review
An editor who has received convincing evidence that a published article has violated ethical standards, made erroneous statements or conclusions must respond as soon as possible - by notifying about changes, retracting the publication and other actions appropriate to the situation. Each ethical complaint is subject to consideration, even if received several years after publication.
The editor's work on considering ethical issues usually includes notifying the author and considering the complaint, as well as, if necessary, further communication with the relevant institutions and research organizations. If the complaint is confirmed to be valid, a correction, retraction or other appropriate statement is published. Every ethical complaint is subject to review, even if it is received several years after publication.
If authors disagree with decisions regarding the expression of doubts on certain articles or have complaints about violations of editorial processes, a corresponding letter should be sent to soc.of.power@gmail.com, it will be considered in the usual manner. The person who sent the complaint receives information about the decision made, as well as about the measures that will be taken and the time frame for their implementation.
When considering complaints, the editors rely on the COPE guidelines in each of the following cases:
Changes to an article accepted for publication that has passed all stages of peer review and pre-print preparation fall into one of the following categories:
1. Addendum,
2. Publisher's correction (erratum),
3. Author's correction (corrigendum).
The decision to publish corrections is made by the journal editors on the recommendation of reviewers, members of the editorial board, or at the written request of the authors of the article. Publication of corrections includes consultation with the authors of the article, but the final decision is made by the editors / editorial board of the journal.
1. Addendum. Addition of new material to the article, supplementing its original content (addendum), requires mandatory peer review. The additional material is additionally sent to the editors as a new manuscript with a link to the original article.
A replacement of part of the original text in a published article may be represented by the publication of a publisher's correction (erratum) or an author's correction (corrigendum).
2. A publisher's correction (erratum) is published in the event of an error (typo, missed change) made by the journal in the process of preparing the article for publication, which is significant and affects the reader's understanding of the article. Corrections are not published for simple, obvious typos.
3. Author's correction (corrigendum). If the authors consider it necessary to make corrections after the publication of the article (corrigendum), they must send a written (by email) request with justification to the editors of the journal. The final decision on the publication of a correction (corrigendum) is made by the editors of the journal and members of the Editorial Board after assessing the impact of the change on the scientific accuracy and significance of the published article. In some cases, the identification of serious errors and inconsistencies in a published article may require retraction of the article.
Rules for retracting an article from publication
When considering situations related to the retraction of articles, the editorial board and publisher of the journal "Sociology of Power" are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and the Ethics Council of the Russia.
Grounds for retracting an article:
• duplication of publication in several publications;
• detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
• detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value.
An article may be retracted upon an official request from the authors, who have reasonably explained the reason for their decision, as well as on the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher based on their own expertise. In the latter case, the author (or the lead author in the group of authors) is sent an official letter with information about the reasons for the retraction of the article.
After retraction, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier, but is marked as retracted. The same mark is made in the issue's table of contents. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been retracted.
The editors publish a statement about the retraction of the article, indicating the reasons and date of retraction, on the official website of the journal.
Information about the retraction of the article and its PDF version with the corresponding mark are sent to the Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases in which the journal is included. The information is also sent to the Scientific Publication Ethics Council of the ASRI for inclusion in the Unified Database of Retracted Articles.
Decision on the publication of an article
The editor-in-chief / guest editor responsible for the journal, guided by the opinion of the editorial board and reviewers, makes a decision on the possibility of publishing an article in the journal.
This decision is always based on the verification of the reliability of the work and its importance for researchers and readers.
The editors of the journal do not publish the final version of the article without its approval by the authors.
The editor ensures the formation of issues based on materials accepted for publication in the general queue, taking into account the priorities for the formation of thematic sections and issues. The editors have the right to adjust the order of publications in accordance with the topics of the issues being prepared.
The editors do not have the right to impose on authors citations of articles previously published in the journal "Sociology of Power" for the purpose of artificially improving scientometric indicators.
The editor has the right not to enter into correspondence with the authors after presenting them with the results of the final examination.
Fairness
The editors evaluate submitted works on their intellectual content, regardless of the author's race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political views.
Confidentiality
The editor-in-chief of the journal and the editorial board staff must not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial board consultants, and the publisher.
Disclosure of information and conflicts of interest
• Unpublished materials contained in the submitted work cannot be used in the work of the editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board, reviewers, and other staff involved in working on the material sent for consideration, without the written consent of the author.
• Confidential information obtained during the review process is not subject to disclosure or use for personal gain.
• The editor-in-chief undertakes to refuse to consider the submitted work if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the authors and organizations associated with this work (the functions of the editor-in-chief can be assumed by an assistant editor or another member of the editorial board).
• The Editor-in-Chief is obliged to require all authors to disclose any conflicts of interest and to publish corrections if any are discovered after publication. If necessary, other appropriate action may be taken, such as publishing a retraction or expression of concern.
• The Editor-in-Chief is obliged to ensure that the peer-review procedures for articles submitted to the journal "Sociology of Power" are followed. Works are accepted for publication in supplements solely on the basis of their academic value, and not for commercial reasons.
• Book reviews and translations are not peer-reviewed; decisions on their publication may be made by the editorial board of the journal without involving external experts.
Citation of the journal which published the submitted article
The editor-in-chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board of the journal should under no circumstances force authors to cite one of the scientific journals published by RANEPA, the editor-in-chief's own publications, and/or members of the Editorial Board as a prerequisite for acceptance of an article manuscript for publication. Any recommendations to cite papers should be based on their scientific significance and aim to improve the material presented.
Ethical complaints review
An editor who has received convincing evidence that a published article has violated ethical standards, made erroneous statements or conclusions must respond as soon as possible - by notifying about changes, retracting the publication and other actions appropriate to the situation. Each ethical complaint is subject to consideration, even if received several years after publication.
The editor's work on considering ethical issues usually includes notifying the author and considering the complaint, as well as, if necessary, further communication with the relevant institutions and research organizations. If the complaint is confirmed to be valid, a correction, retraction or other appropriate statement is published. Every ethical complaint is subject to review, even if it is received several years after publication.
If authors disagree with decisions regarding the expression of doubts on certain articles or have complaints about violations of editorial processes, a corresponding letter should be sent to soc.of.power@gmail.com, it will be considered in the usual manner. The person who sent the complaint receives information about the decision made, as well as about the measures that will be taken and the time frame for their implementation.
When considering complaints, the editors rely on the COPE guidelines in each of the following cases:
- Handling of postpublication Critique
- Post-publication discussions and corrections
- Peer review manipulation suspected after publication
- Inappropriate image manipulation in a published article
- Fabricated data in a published article
Changes to an article accepted for publication that has passed all stages of peer review and pre-print preparation fall into one of the following categories:
1. Addendum,
2. Publisher's correction (erratum),
3. Author's correction (corrigendum).
The decision to publish corrections is made by the journal editors on the recommendation of reviewers, members of the editorial board, or at the written request of the authors of the article. Publication of corrections includes consultation with the authors of the article, but the final decision is made by the editors / editorial board of the journal.
1. Addendum. Addition of new material to the article, supplementing its original content (addendum), requires mandatory peer review. The additional material is additionally sent to the editors as a new manuscript with a link to the original article.
A replacement of part of the original text in a published article may be represented by the publication of a publisher's correction (erratum) or an author's correction (corrigendum).
2. A publisher's correction (erratum) is published in the event of an error (typo, missed change) made by the journal in the process of preparing the article for publication, which is significant and affects the reader's understanding of the article. Corrections are not published for simple, obvious typos.
3. Author's correction (corrigendum). If the authors consider it necessary to make corrections after the publication of the article (corrigendum), they must send a written (by email) request with justification to the editors of the journal. The final decision on the publication of a correction (corrigendum) is made by the editors of the journal and members of the Editorial Board after assessing the impact of the change on the scientific accuracy and significance of the published article. In some cases, the identification of serious errors and inconsistencies in a published article may require retraction of the article.
Rules for retracting an article from publication
When considering situations related to the retraction of articles, the editorial board and publisher of the journal "Sociology of Power" are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and the Ethics Council of the Russia.
Grounds for retracting an article:
• duplication of publication in several publications;
• detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
• detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value.
An article may be retracted upon an official request from the authors, who have reasonably explained the reason for their decision, as well as on the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher based on their own expertise. In the latter case, the author (or the lead author in the group of authors) is sent an official letter with information about the reasons for the retraction of the article.
After retraction, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier, but is marked as retracted. The same mark is made in the issue's table of contents. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been retracted.
The editors publish a statement about the retraction of the article, indicating the reasons and date of retraction, on the official website of the journal.
Information about the retraction of the article and its PDF version with the corresponding mark are sent to the Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases in which the journal is included. The information is also sent to the Scientific Publication Ethics Council of the ASRI for inclusion in the Unified Database of Retracted Articles.
Best Practice Guidelines for Reviewers
Each article is reviewed by at least two experts who have every opportunity to freely express motivated critical comments regarding the level and clarity of presentation of the presented material, its compliance with the profile of the journal, novelty and reliability of the results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
Participation in the decision to publish
The review procedure helps the editor-in-chief in making a decision on publication, and the editor-in-chief can also communicate with the author of the work. Reviewing is an integral part of scientific communication and the basis of the scientific method used in the editorial office of the journal. The editorial board and the board of the journal share the opinion of representatives of the scientific community that the work of researchers wishing to publish their articles on the pages of the journal must undergo the review procedure.
Confidentiality
Any work accepted for review is considered a confidential document. Works are not subject to demonstration or discussion with other persons, with the exception of persons authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers are required to express their opinions clearly and support them with appropriate arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
It is the reviewer's responsibility to recognize fragments of published works cited without appropriate citation. Any statement that a certain observation, conclusion, or argument has been made previously should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. The reviewer is also required to draw the editor's attention to any similarities between the submitted article and any other published work known to the reviewer.
Disclosure of Information and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials contained in the submitted work may not be used in the reviewer's research without the written consent of the author. Confidential information obtained during the review process is not subject to disclosure or use for personal gain.
The reviewer undertakes to decline to consider the submitted work if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the authors and organizations associated with this work.
In case of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the editor about it with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript. For example, the scientific supervisor (scientific consultant) of any of the authors - applicants for an academic degree cannot act as a reviewer.
The reviewer also undertakes to refuse to consider the manuscript and inform the editor-in-chief of his decision if, in his opinion, he does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript.
The decision to publish (or reject) the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal, based on the results of the review and recommendations of the editorial board.
Participation in the decision to publish
The review procedure helps the editor-in-chief in making a decision on publication, and the editor-in-chief can also communicate with the author of the work. Reviewing is an integral part of scientific communication and the basis of the scientific method used in the editorial office of the journal. The editorial board and the board of the journal share the opinion of representatives of the scientific community that the work of researchers wishing to publish their articles on the pages of the journal must undergo the review procedure.
Confidentiality
Any work accepted for review is considered a confidential document. Works are not subject to demonstration or discussion with other persons, with the exception of persons authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers are required to express their opinions clearly and support them with appropriate arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
It is the reviewer's responsibility to recognize fragments of published works cited without appropriate citation. Any statement that a certain observation, conclusion, or argument has been made previously should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. The reviewer is also required to draw the editor's attention to any similarities between the submitted article and any other published work known to the reviewer.
Disclosure of Information and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials contained in the submitted work may not be used in the reviewer's research without the written consent of the author. Confidential information obtained during the review process is not subject to disclosure or use for personal gain.
The reviewer undertakes to decline to consider the submitted work if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the authors and organizations associated with this work.
In case of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the editor about it with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript. For example, the scientific supervisor (scientific consultant) of any of the authors - applicants for an academic degree cannot act as a reviewer.
The reviewer also undertakes to refuse to consider the manuscript and inform the editor-in-chief of his decision if, in his opinion, he does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript.
The decision to publish (or reject) the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal, based on the results of the review and recommendations of the editorial board.
Best Practice Guidelines for Publisher
The publisher should not influence the editorial policy of the journal.
The publisher should provide organisational, financial, intellectual, and legal support to the editorial board of the journal.
The publisher should ensure the timely publication of the issues of the journal.
The publisher should provide organisational, financial, intellectual, and legal support to the editorial board of the journal.
The publisher should ensure the timely publication of the issues of the journal.