Aim and Scope

The mission of the journal "Novelty. Experiment. Traditions" is to provide the opportunity to publish scientific articles for students studying in undergraduate, master's and specialist programs, prepared on the basis of studies conducted in the process of educational and scientific activities in the areas of: political science, economics, management, sociology, jurisprudence, history, psychology, philosophy, informatics.

The journal is the scientific periodic online media publishing the scientific articles, the translations, reports, state-of-the-art reviews, reviews, the essay and other materials corresponding to subject of the journal.

The journal is intended to facilitate the creation of a specialized platform for discussing scientific issues related to various aspects relevant to the journal.

Section Policies

Publication Frequency

4 times per year

Open Access Policy

"Novelty. Experiment. Traditions" is an open access journal. 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, 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

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal "Novelty. Experiment. Traditions" undergo mandatory peer review: bilateral anonymous ("blind") review (the authors of the article do not know the reviewers, are informed by the responsible editorial staff), and open review (the reviewer and author have complete information about each other, that is, they know: names, positions, places of work). An open review recognizes the review of the student's supervisor, who submitted a scientific article for publication.

1. Review of articles is carried out by invited reviewers - leading specialists in the relevant industry of Russia. The decision to choose a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor, head of the publishing department. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but may be extended at the reviewer's request.
2. Each article is sent to 1-2 reviewers.
   2.2. If the student provides a scientific article without the review of the supervisor, the article is sent to 2-3 reviewers.
3. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review in the event of an apparent conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of the review of the article, the reviewer makes recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• the article is recommended for publication in this form;
• the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
• the article needs additional peer review by another specialist;
• an article cannot be published in a journal.

4. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and refining the article, the journal editorial board sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). Revision of the article should not take more than two months from the moment of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review.
5. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editors remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are notified of the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
6. If the author and reviewers have unresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board is entitled to forward the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
7. After the decision to allow the article to be published, the editors inform the author about this and indicate the timing of publication.
8. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in publication, namely, Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publishers, and the Scientific Society for the journal.

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision The Chief Editor, Deputy Chief Editor and Collegiate Journal Management Bodies are responsible for making the decision on publication. The validity of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be at the heart of the decision to publish. The Chief Editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal, considering the current legal requirements regarding copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The Chief Editor considers the opinion of scientific editors of the journal, members of the editorial board and reviewers when deciding on publication.

2.2. Confidentiality

The Chief Editor and any editorial staff of “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions” must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author.

2.3. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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. 2.4.Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The Chief Editor, Reviewers and members of Editorial Board should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

 Peer review assists the Chief 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. 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.

3.2. Promptness

 Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the responsible person of the journal “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions” stuff and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources.

Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. 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.

3.6.2. 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. 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 detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Originality and Plagiarism

4.2.1. The authors should ensure 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.

4.2.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.3. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.3.1. 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

4.3.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.3.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

4.4. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.5. Authorship of the Paper

4.5.1. 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.

4.5.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.6.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict 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.

4.6.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.7. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions” journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn 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.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions” in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions” journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Founder

• Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Author fees

Publication in “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

The journal doesn't pay royalties to the authors of the articles.

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

“Novelty. Experiment. Traditions" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Novelty. Experiment. Traditions" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)