This publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of Historical Sociology is based on Elsevierʼs Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
The preparation of the journal is governed by principles of publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Historical Sociology is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. Any kind of unethical behaviour is not acceptable, and Historical Sociology does not tolerate plagiarism in any form.
The prevention of publication malpractice is the responsibility of every author, editor and reviewer.
Duties of Authors
By submitting an article for peer review in the Journal Historical Sociology authors confirm they have written a submitted article themselves.
Authors confirm that all sources used in manuscript must be properly cited in accordance with copyright and ethical rules of scientific work. All sources should be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Authors also confirm that their paper has not been submitted for review in another journal and that has not been previously published unless an agreement with the editor-in-chief.
Oﬀering a manuscript to another journal while it is being reviewed or within the editorial period is considered unethical.
If at any point of time, author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.
Duties of Editors
The editor-in-chief of Historical Sociology can accept, reject or request modifications to the articles submitted to the journal.
Editor-in-chief ensures that each manuscript is evaluated by two referees with blind peer review.
Manuscripts will be evaluated on their intellectual merit without regard to author's race or ethnic origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation or political philosophy.
Editor-in-chief must ensure that all information regarding submitted article is kept confidential. The relation between authors and reviewers is anonymous on both sides.
If needed, editorial board is willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies.
Duties of Reviewers
Reviewers should be conducted objectively. There should be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions.