For Authors
Submission
The Editorial Board of “SER” journal approves the publication the following papers in English:
- Academic articles and research reports,
- Book reviews.
The Editorial Board approves only original papers previously unpublished in any other periodicals or books or being subject to evaluation in another journal.
The Journal does not charge for article submission, processing or publication.
Proposals of submissions should be sent to the Editorial address (see: Contact).
The Editorial Board reserves the right to introduce appropriate editorial modifications, including cuts, in consultation with the author if the paper exceeds the approved length.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject submitted papers. The Editorial Board does not return received papers. The authors are not paid for the publication of their articles.
Submissions from the Programme Board and Editorial Board members are handled in the same way as those from other authors.
Copyright
Upon acceptance for publication, the author consents to transfer the copyright to the editor.
The author is authorised to use the content of the article published in the Journal in further scientific research provided s/he cites the source of the publication.
Self-archiving Policy
The author can archive pre-print (i.e., pre-refereeing) on any website. The author can archive post-print (i.e., final draft post-refereeing) on the author's personal website, institutional open access repository, and academic social networks. The author can archive the Publisher's version (PDF) in the above-mentioned places. The publisher's copyright and source must be acknowledged with a full citation linked to the publisher version with DOI. A copy of the License must accompany any deposit.
Appeal against editorial decisions
Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions. The author not agreeing with the negative editorial decision basing on an article review, has two weeks, since the date of notification about the text not being accepted for publication, for replying with an official note asking for another evaluation of the text. In the note she/he should provide the reasoning on why the text should be approved. Once familiarized with the arguments, the Editorial Board keeps an initial decision (if the arguments are not convincing) or directs the text for another review (if the reasoning provided is convincing). The process of another review lasts up to 3 weeks starting from the date of a request for another article review.
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The author of the paper is responsible for copyright violation and other issues related to the article. The author of the article should obtain relevant consent from other authors/editors/publishers to use excerpts from other publications, charts, graphics and similar sources. If the article has several co-authors, the author submitting the article for publication shall obtain relevant consent from other co-authors in order to meet the editorial requirements listed above.
Authors are obliged to provide complete information concerning sources of funding, the contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities ("financial disclosure").
Anti-Plagiarism Policy
SER uses the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system with the iThenticate tool for researchers and professional writers to check their original works for potential plagiarism. Please see more: http://www.ithenticate.com/about
Ghostwriting and guest-authorship
In order to prevent ghost-writing and guest-authorship the Editorial Board requires the authors to disclose the contributions of individual authors to paper development (listing their affiliations and inputs, i.e. the information about the author of the concept, hypotheses, methods, protocols, etc. used in the writing of the paper), while the overall responsibility for the manuscript rests with the main author. Considering the fact that ghost-writing and guest-authorship are symptoms of scientific dishonesty, the editorial team shall report each such case to relevant bodies (academic units employing the authors, academic associations, academic editors’ associations etc.).
In case of doubts please read the following rules of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Peer review process
Each paper is anonymously submitted to two reviewers. The author receives their reviews irrespective of whether the article is approved for publication. If the paper is approved for publication, the author is requested to comment on the suggested modifications by the deadline set by the editorial team.
Evaluation criteria: precision of formulated objective, originality of research issues, theoretical background, quality of empirical research, originality of conclusions, the significance of development in scientific field confluent with the scientific profile of the Journal, attentive language, comprehensibility, punctuation; appropriate source selection.
Each review is issued ends with an unambiguous recommendation:
• The article can be published in the present form.
• The article can be published after introduction of minor modifications and addenda.
• The article can be published after its re-edition and the consecutive review.
• The article cannot be published.
