English 
Русский Policies
Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana has been published since 2007.
It is the only Russias international journal on Slavic historical studies with the international editorial staff and the international editorial board.
The aim of the journal is to publish the results of the latest research in the history of the Slavic and Balkan nations, introduce new sources, and review the most interesting up-to-date books in the field of Slavic Studies.
When selecting materials the editors adhere to the following principles:
- the novelty and the importance of research;
- originality of research: publication in the journal should be the first one for all materials; full or partial reprinting of the already published texts is not allowed;
- high standard of research – articles go through the process of anonymous peer-reviewing by both the members of the editorial board and other scholars from around the world;
- academic response to the research; forums, debates and discussions on the issues causing the greatest response in todays historiography;
- the significance of the research for the history of the Slavic peoples. Preference is given to the publication of sources, articles containing new data and concepts, or an entirely new interpretation of known scientific problems;
- the scale and the fundamental nature of the research. Preference is given to the materials suggesting a solution to a major academic problem;
- the international character of research. The journal offers its pages to the authors from all countries. We prefer to publish articles in the original language (Russian, English, German, all Slavic languages), except where the translation into a more widespread language will help expand readership.
The main mission of the journal as an academic periodical is to disseminate publications of new research on the large parts of Europe from the Baltic to the Mediterranean and from the Danube and the Oder to central Russia across the entire international academic community.
Russian State Library (CiberLeninka)
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, 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.
2. The reviewer has the opportunity to refuse the assessment in case of a conflict of interest that may affect the perception or interpretation of the manuscript. After consideration, the reviewer should submit to the editor one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the article in its present form;
- to invite the author to revise the manuscript to solve specific problems before making a final decision;
- that the final decision will be made after further consideration by another specialist;
- reject the manuscript completely.
3. If the reviewer recommended any clarifications, the editorial Board suggests the author either to make corrections or to challenge them reasonably. Authors should limit the deadline to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript during this period for final evaluation.
4. We kindly ask that the editor be notified orally or in writing if the author decides to refuse to publish the manuscript.
5. If the author and reviewers are faced with insoluble contradictions in the revision of the manuscript, the editorial Board invites another specialist for further review. The editor-in-chief resolves the conflict with his authority after hearing the reviewers ' recommendations.
6. The Editorial Board makes a final decision on the rejection of the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers and duly notifies the authors of the decision by e-mail. The Editirial Board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
7. After the decision to accept / rejection the manuscript for publication, the editors notify the authors of the planned by e-mail.
8. Please note that a positive review does not guarantee its adoption, as the final decision in all cases is made by the Editorial Board. According to his authority, the editor-in-chief rules the final solution to each conflict.
9. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for 3 years.
• Scopus
• CEEOL
• Proquest
• EBSCO
• DOAJ - Directory of Open access journals
• Electronic Scientific Library (eLibrary.ru)
The Editorial Council and Editorial Board of "Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana" 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 publication of the research materials.
General duties and responsibilities of Editors
Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. They should:
• strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• constantly improve the journal;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
• always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Relations with readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research
Relations with authors
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified.
Relations with reviewers
Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected — unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
The peer-review process
Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Complaints
Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart. http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
Encouraging debate
Cogent criticisms of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be.
Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Encouraging academic integrity
Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Protecting individual data
Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that obtained through the doctor–patient relationship). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent from patients described in case reports and for photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in some other way important); consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain; and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three conditions must be met).
Pursuing misconduct
Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.
Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable (link to flowcharts: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen,
Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
Relations with journal owners and publishers.
The relationship of Editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should in each case be based firmly on the principle of Editorial independence. Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals,
Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain.
Commercial considerations
Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing supplements.
Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the same criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be added.
Conflict of interest
Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.
Process for dealing with complaints against Editors referred to COPE
• A complaint may be referred to COPE by an author, reader, reviewer, Editor or publisher. Cases may only be referred if the Editor/journal in question is a member of COPE.
• In the first instance complaints against an Editor should be made directly to him or her in writing. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, it should be passed to the Editor’s overseeing body or ombudsman where one exists.
Only complaints that have been through the journal’s complaint’s procedure can be referred to COPE. In referring a complaint to COPE, all relevant correspondence should be enclosed.
• COPE will accept referrals made within six months of the journal completing its own complaints procedure.
COPE may consider cases outside this time period in exceptional circumstances.
• COPE will not consider complaints about the substance (rather than the process) of Editorial decisions, or criticisms about Editorial content.
• COPE will not consider referrals that relate to incidents that occurred before the publication of this code.
When a complaint is referred to COPE:
1. The referrer submits a complaint to the Administrator.
2. The COPE Administrator confirms that the complaint is:
a. against a member of COPE
b. within the remit of the Code
c. unresolved after passing properly through the journal’s complaints procedure
d. relating to an incident that occurred after this code came into force (1 January 2005)
3. The referrer is asked to provide evidence, with all relevant supporting documents including correspondence relating to the hearing of the complaint by the journal, in confidence to the Chair of COPE.
4. The Chair of COPE informs the Editor of the journal in question that the complaint has been referred to COPE.
5. A number of potential scenarios may occur:
a. The Editor refuses to cooperate, in which case, the Chair of COPE informs the referrer and the owner of the journal.
b. The Editor replies stating his/her case:
i. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that the journal has dealt with the complaint satisfactorily and advises the referrer and Editor accordingly.
ii. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that there is a need for further investigation, advises the referrer and Editor accordingly, and reports this to an appropriately constituted sub committee of the COPE Council.
6. The sub-committee considering the complaint will consist of at least the Chair and three other members of COPE Council. Two of the members must not be Editors. None of the sub-committee members should belong to the same publishing group as the Editor in question.
7. If the Chair belongs to the same publishing group as the Editor in question, s/he will appoint an appropriate deputy to oversee the proceedings.
8. When the case comes to the sub-committee, the sub-committee either:
a. dismisses it, and the referrer and Editor are so advised and given reasons
b. reaches the view that a breach of the code has taken place.
When the sub-committee is of the view that a breach of the code has taken place it presents a report to the COPE Council explaining the nature of the breach and recommending a course of action.
9. The COPE Council considers the report and may modify the recommendations. The Council informs the referrer, the Editor and the owner of its final recommendations. These recommendations may include:
a. that the Editor apologise to the original complainant;
b. that the Editor publish a statement from COPE in his/her journal;
c. that the journal improve its processes;
d. that the Editor resigns from COPE membership for a period of time; or
e. any other action which the COPE Council feels is appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Appeals procedure
Appeals against a COPE recommendation may be made to COPE’s ombudsperson, contact details for whom will be provided on request.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
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.