Aim and Scope

The main purpose of the journal is the analysis, systematization and promotion of scientific achievements in the field of sociology and philosophy

Journal tasks:

• reflection of the results of research, scientific, practical and experimental activities of actively working scientists - doctors and candidates of sciences, young researchers - doctoral students, postgraduates, undergraduates; sociologists, philosophers actively engaged in scientific and innovative activities;
• promotion of the main achievements of domestic and world university and branch science in the field of new humanities research;
• identification of scientific potential for the development and use of advanced achievements of sociology and philosophy.

The open format of the journal and the principle of open access allows for the widest coverage of the readership and author's audience.

Section Policies

SOCIOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PHILOSOPHY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEW ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

6 issues per year

Open Access Policy

This 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

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Kazan Socially-Humanitarian Bulletin" (hereinafter referred to as the Journal) approved the following procedure for reviewing manuscripts:

1. General provisions

All manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial board of the Journal are subject to the mandatory procedure of simple blind review (any information about the reviewer is confidential to the author).

Reviewers can be exclusively highly qualified specialists with recognized authority and experience in research activities within the subject of the reviewed manuscript. The author or co-author of the manuscript cannot be involved in reviewing.

2. Organization of peer review

The issuing editor of the Journal is obliged to notify the author of the receipt of the manuscript within 10 days.

The review of the manuscript takes from 2 to 4 months. However, the editorial board reserves the right to set review deadlines in each individual case.

The review of the manuscript is carried out in several stages: a) at the first stage, the reviewer evaluates the manuscript based on its compliance with the profile of the Journal, scientific presentation and compliance with the requirements for registration; b) at the second stage, the content of the manuscript is analyzed from the point of view of the consistency of the topic stated in the title and the content of the work, the clarity of the formulation of research goals and the methodology chosen to achieve them, the novelty and relevance of the results obtained, the personal contribution of the author to the solution of the problem under study, the correct interpretation of the data obtained and their reliability, sufficient validity of the presented conclusions. In addition, the reviewer notes all inaccuracies, errors and technical errors made by the author, and also carefully examines the quality of the abstract, the completeness of the list of cited sources and its compliance with the studied problem.

The reviewer makes a reasoned conclusion based on the results of the above-described analysis of the manuscript:

• recommended for publication in the presented form;
• recommended for publication after revision required by the reviewer;
• recommended for publication after revision and re-review;
• cannot be published;
• recommended to another magazine.

The decision to publish an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal based on the reviewer's review. If the reviewer gives a negative review, the manuscript will not be published and will not be returned. In case of a positive review, the final decision is made by the editorial board of the Journal. The issuing editor is obliged to send the author a copy of the review and notify him of the final decision regarding the expediency of publishing the manuscript.

3. Review format

The review is written in a free form or is drawn up in accordance with the form recommended by the editorial board of the Journal. The reviewer's review must be certified by his signature.

4. The procedure for storing and submitting reviews of manuscripts

The original versions of all reviews are kept in the editorial office of the Journal for 5 years. Copies of the reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request to the editorial office.

Publishing Ethics

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The policy of the journal "Kazan Socio-Humanitarian Bulletin" in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications.

1. Duties of editors

1.1. Decision on publication. The editor of a scientific journal is independently and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board, the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal. The scientific content of the work under consideration and the scientific significance of the work should always be the basis of the decision on publication. The editor may be guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal, being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

1.2. Impartiality. The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.

1.3. Confidentiality. The editor and the editorial board are not required to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to third parties, except for authors, reviewers and other consultants.

1.4. Conflicts of interest and their Resolution Policy

1.4.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to priority benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.

1.4.2. Editors should refuse to review manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies and other organizations associated with the manuscript.

1.5. Supervision of publications. The editor, who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions contained in the publication are erroneous, should inform the publisher about this in order to notify the publisher as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other appropriate actions.

1.6. Actions in case of ethical claims. The editor, together with the publisher, take adequate response measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

2. Responsibilities of reviewers

2.1. Influence on the decisions of the editorial board. Reviewing helps the editor to make an adequate decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the authors can also help the author to improve the quality of the work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the core of the scientific approach. The editorial board shares the point of view that all scientists who want to publish their works are obliged to participate in reviewing manuscripts.

2.2. Performance. Any selected reviewer who is aware of the lack of his qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify the editor and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.

2.3. Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editor.

2.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinion.

2.5. Recognition of primary sources. Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer's scientific competence.

2.6. Information Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

2.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.

2.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

3. Responsibilities of authors

3.1. Requirements for manuscripts. The authors of the manuscript should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective judgment on the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately, without errors. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

3.2 Data access and storage. The authors may be asked for raw data related to the manuscript for review and evaluation by editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information, if possible, and in any case keep this data for a reasonable period of time after publication.

3.3. Originality and plagiarism

3.3.1. Authors should make sure that the original work is presented in full and, in case of using the works or statements of other authors, provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations.

3.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms – from presenting someone else's work as an author's work to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else's work without attribution, as well as claiming their own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.

3.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

3.4.1. In general, the author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

3.4.2. In general, the author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.

3.4.3. The publication of a certain type of articles (for example, translated) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. Authors and editors of interested journals may agree to re-publication, which necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work. A bibliographic reference to the first work should be presented in the second publication.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or in the process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources (for example, in the course of reviewing or evaluating manuscripts for grants) should not be used without the express written permission of the authors of the work related to confidential sources.

3.6. Authorship of the publication

3.6.1. The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as co-authors. In cases where research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular direction in a research project, they should be indicated in the footnote as persons who have made a significant contribution to this study.

3.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as co-authors, and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, and also make sure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

3.7. Information Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, receiving fees, providing expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

Founder

• Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University"

Author fees

Publication in “The Kazan Socially-Humanitarian Bulletin" 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.

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

“The Kazan Socially-Humanitarian Bulletin" 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 “The Kazan Socially-Humanitarian Bulletin", 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 “The Kazan Socially-Humanitarian Bulletin" 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)

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.