Editor-in-Chif: Maria Polozhikhina, PhD (Geogr. Sci.), Head of the Department of Economics, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Deputy Editor-in-Chif: Olga Bolshakova, PhD (Hist. Sci.), Leading Researcher of the Department of Economics, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Executive secretary: Inna Chuvychkina, PhD, Researcher of the Department of Economics, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Vladimir Gerasimov, PhD (Philol. Sci.), Head of the Department of Scientific Cooperation, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Elena Grebenshchikova, DrS (Philos. Sci.), Head of the Center for Scientific and Information Research on Science, Education and Technology, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Alexander Dolgov, PhD (Sociol. Sci.), Senior Researcher of the Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Elena Meleshkina, DrS. (Pol. Sci.), Head of Political Science Department, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Svetlana Kodaneva, PhD (Law Sci.), Senior Researcher of the Department of Law, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Natalya Korovnikova, PhD (Pol. Sci.), Leading Researcher of the Department of Economics, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Yuri Korgunyuk, DrS. (Pol. Sci.), Leading Researcher of Political Science Department, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia)
Alexey Kuznetsov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Science, DrS. (Econ. Sci.), Director of INION RAN (Moscow, Russia);
Dmitry Efremenko, DrS. (Pol. Sci.), Head of the Center of Social Scientific-Information Studies, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia);
Elena Alferova, PhD (Law Sci.), Head of the Department of Law, INION RAN (Moscow, Russia);
Natalia Makasheva, DrS. (Econ. Sci.), Prof. of the Faculty of Economics, HSE (Moscow, Russia);
Olga Larina, DrS. (Law Sci.), Head of Department of theory and history of state and law, Vice-rector for science and innovation of SWSU (Kursk, Russia);
Irina Loskutova, DrS. (Sociol. Sci.), Associate Prof. of the Department of theoretical and special sociology, Institute of social and humanitarian education, Moscow State Pedagogical University (Moscow, Russia);
Nikolay Nenovsky, PhD, Prof. of University of Picardy (Amiens, France);
Zhang Shuhua, PhD, Prof., Director of the Institute of Political Science of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Beijing, China)
The journal «Social novelties and Social sciences», published by the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAS), consistently adheres to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), mode of access: https://publicationethics.org/.
The editorial or scientific ethics of publications is understood a set of ethical standards that are mandatory for the staff of the editorial board, reviewers and authors of the journal.
- All materials submitted to the journal undergo double-blind peer review. Before sending the manuscript to the referee, the editorial board makes sure that there is no conflict of interest between the author and the referee. At the same time the editorial board verifies he absence of kinship or co-authorship with the reviewer and author.
- The journal does not publish materials containing incorrect borrowings, including from author’s previously published works. Before reviewing, the manuscript must be tested by Antiplagiat system.
- The editorial board refuses to publish articles that have already been published or submitted to other journals, appeared or may appear in the press before the release of «Social innovation and social sciences».
- The decision to accept or to reject the manuscript for publication is made on the basis of an impartial analysis of its content, considering the quality of the analytics and the reliability of the data presented in it. Discrimination of authors based on national, gender, racial principles, religious or political preferences of the authors is unacceptable. The decision to accept the manuscript for publication is not affected by the interests of business and politics, the factor of possible differences of opinion of the editorial board, reviewers and authors.
- Responsibility for the acceptance / rejection of the manuscript lies on the main editor and editor-compilers. A manuscript can be rejected without review if it does not match the profile and topic of the journal.
- In the event of violation of someone’s rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics, the editors have the right to withdraw the manuscript accepted for publication from further work, notifying the author.
- The chief editor and the editors-compilers are obliged to respect the intellectual independence of the authors. The copyright of persons who have sent their articles and materials for consideration are strictly observed: a license agreement is concluded with the authors. The editorial board is observing editorial secrets and does not provide information to third parties about the results of their review. Unpublished works cannot be transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author.
- Journal reviewers may be members of the editorial board, as well as volunteers from the professional community.
- In peer review cannot be involved people who collaborated with the author(s) in the same research team, as well as being scientific consultants (managers) of the authors in seeking academic degrees.
- The reviewer should evaluate the quality of the manuscript based on the following criteria: relevance to the issue topic; originality, reflection of modern scientific approaches and related publications (domestic and foreign); correspondence to the genre of a scientific article (statement of a scientific problem, correctness of argumentation, adequate use of scientific methods of analysis, strict use of concepts, etc.); compliance with the requirements of the scientific style (accuracy, consistency, etc.) and with journal’s requirements for the publications.
- The reviewer is obliged to note any cases of incorrect citation of the works of other authors, notifying the editorial board of any significant similarity between the manuscript and previously published works of third parties.
- The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
- The reviewer is obliged to submit the review timely.
- The reviewer is required to maintain confidentiality working with manuscripts. As well has no right to show or discuss with colleagues the material, also should not use information about the content of the work before its publication.
- On the author lies responsibility for including persons involved in the creation of the manuscript to the list of co-authors.
- The manuscript proposed for publication should represent original scientific study which results have not been previously published. Authors are fully responsible for the submitted study results.
- Citation of other people's works or references to them should be accompanied by an indication of the authors and primary sources. Assignment of rights to the results of other people's research is not allowed.
- The originality of the manuscript should be at least 75%.
- If the manuscript has been prepared as part of the work funded by grants, subsidies, etc., the author should indicate it in a footnote to the title.
The editorial Board of the scientific journal performs a double-blind review of all incoming materials that meet the thematic profile and formal requirements.
The review is carried out within two weeks. The expert makes a brief review of the manuscript, which notes the expediency or inexpediency of publication, the advantages and disadvantages of the article, and the possibility of its revision.
Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:
- matching the release theme;
- novelty and originality of the material, reflection of modern scientific approaches (domestic and foreign) and related publications;
- professionalism (clear statement of the problem, correct argumentation, adequate use of scientific methods, strict use of concepts, etc.);
- scientific style of presentation (clarity and structure of presentation, accuracy, consistency, consistency, evidence, etc.);
- compliance of the design with the requirements for the manuscript.
If the material needs improvement, the author is sent a letter with the appropriate recommendations. If the author does not submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified in the letter, the manuscript is considered rejected. After the author submits the revised manuscript, it is re-examined. If the expert concludes that the recommendations were not taken into account by the author, the manuscript is rejected and the correspondence with the author is terminated. If the publication is refused, the editorial Board sends the author a reasoned refusal using the materials of the review.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for at least 5 years. Copies of reviews can be provided to the author, as well as to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation upon request.