Social Sciences: Transformations & transitions
Duration: The review process takes approximately 21 days from submission to publication.
If reviewers require revision or re-submission, duration will depend on the authors.
All ERUDITUS® journals abide the Editorial Policy consisting of Ethical, Technical and Academic standards and includes post-publishing investigation to ensure their compliance with our established requirements and avoid publishing malpractices. Consequently, final acceptance of a submitted paper is based on obtaining the editorial approval in the three above-mentioned sectors.
A. Our Principles:
1. We respect the freedom of research.
There is no restriction on selected subjects, related political/religious issues, conclusions, etc., as long as they comply with ethical requirements and the results are objective, based on scholarly research.
2. We advance Inclusive Policy.
At ERUDITUS, we do not show any preferences. We accept manuscripts from all countries and territories, and from any group or community, as long as they are in compliance with Academic, Ethical and Technical standards.
3. We aim to facilitate scholarly research.
We seek to increase the share of high-quality open access research in English from developing and under-developed countries. For this purpose, we provide authors with affordable services.
4. We are ready to help early career scholars.
We know how difficult could be to publish the first article. At ERUDITUS we stand ready to assist new authors by mentoring them how to prepare their research for publishing.
5. We remove unnecessary limitations.
We do not have any restrictions on the length of a manuscript or its layout.
Manuscript Review Process consists of the following stages:
A. Technical review
During the technical examination, the editorial team decides if a manuscript:
is within the Aims & Scope of the Journal;
meets author’s guidelines;
contains appropriate research;
is provided with data availability;
includes valid links and competent sources;
and is written in English meeting the required level.
B. Ethical review
The ethical standards have been developed based on COPE Core Practices, and include, but are not limited to, plagiarism, authorship, citations, resources, declaration of interests, funding disclosure, and use of inclusive language.
During the Ethical review, the editorial team examines manuscripts on:
The originality of a submitted paper is subject to an obligatory checking by iThenticate/Similarity-Check, and if necessary, by more professional softwares, and may include an additional manual check to avoid plagiarism or republishing of a work already published in another country or in a different language.
Plagiarism, in any form, is not tolerated.
The contributions of authors and the authorship must correspond to the authorship requirements. A submitted manuscript shall contain a statement of fulfilling the authorship criteria confirming that have not been omitted other authors, taking responsibility for the integrity of those contributions. The editorial board may contact authors or, if necessary, their institutions or funders to avoid inappropriate authorship.
Citations & Resources
Use of inaccurate data, incompetent resources, inappropriate citation, or an excess of self-citation is not acceptable.
Inappropriate citations and resources may serve as a cause for rejection.
Any data manipulation, falsification, or invention is not tolerated.
Conflicts of Interest & Funding Disclosure
All issues regarding any existing or potential conflicts of interest will be checked and the editorial team do their best to not allow and conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, staff, and editorial board.
Inclusive Language & Objectivity
To proceed further, a submitted article shall be free from bias, stereotypes, slang, references to dominant culture, and cultural assumptions, as well as the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered exclusionary of particular groups of people.
All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer-review process by one or two reviewers that are experts in the area of a particular manuscript. The peer-review process is double-blind, which means that the identities of both the reviewer and author are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
The final decision shall be made by a topic editor or by editorial board considering the overall quality of a paper and the issued reports of reviewers.
The factors that are considered in a peer-review process include, but are not limited to, originality, relevance, soundness, significance, and accuracy.
The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, resubmission required, and rejection.
Corresponding author is obliged to participate in the peer review process and provide the editorial team with required information. Ignoring the editorial queries or refusing to provide additional information will lead to rejection.
If authors are invited to revise or resubmit a manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
The editorial board provides authors with the reason for rejection, whenever possible.
D. Post-Publishing Investigation
Any allegations of publication misconduct after publishing will be investigated carefully. The editorial team may contact authors, their institutions, or funders, if necessary. If evidence of misconduct is found, the appropriate action will be taken to correct or retract the publication.
If authors discover any errors in the published research, they are obliged to inform the journal immediately and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.