- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Repository policy
Aim and Scope
Mission of the journal is in comprehensive and objective interpretation, prompt and independent information to readers about research in the field of digital sociology.
Aims of the journal:
- exchange of scientific knowledge on new solutions and applications of information technologies in sociology;
- wide discussion of new ideas in the field of digital sociology – a branch of sociological science, that explores the role of the Internet and the impact of electronic technologies on social life in general;
- organization of international cooperation through the exchange of scientific ideas and involvement of specialists in the field of digital sociology from different countries to work in the editorial board and to publish their articles in full-text access.
Objectives of the journal:
- generalization of scientific and practical achievements in the field of digital sociology;
- attracting the attention of scientists to the most relevant, perspective and interesting areas of research on the subject of the journal;
- exchange of opinions between researchers from different regions and States.
Topics of the journal:
- areas of research in the field of digital sociology;
- digital environment and everything connected with it;
- emethods and technologies on-line in sociology.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
IndexedPublication Frequency
4 times a year
Open Access Policy
"Digital Sociology" 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
1. The publication reviews all materials submitted to the editorial Board, corresponding to its subject, for the purpose of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have over the past 3 years of publication on the subject of the peer-reviewed article. Reviews are stored in publishing house and in edition of the edition within 5 years.
2. The manuscript of a scientific article submitted to the editorial office of the journal is considered by the editorial office of the journal for compliance with its profile, requirements for registration. In case of a positive decision of the editorial Board to accept the article for consideration, it is sent for review to a specialist — doctor or candidate of Sciences (PhD), who has the closest scientific specialization to the topic of the article. Leading scientists in the relevant field of scientific knowledge are involved in reviewing the manuscripts submitted for publication. Reviewers can be members of the editorial Board of the journal, as well as the teaching staff of the State University of management, highly qualified external experts and practitioners. All reviewers are independent of the authors, that is, not associated with the same institution.
3. Peer review is defined as receiving consultation/advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the field. The review is submitted either in free form or according to the template set by the editorial Board.
4. Type of review - double blind review. The manuscript is submitted to the reviewer in printed and (or) electronic form without specifying the name, position, place of work of the authors. Reviewers are notified that the materials sent to them are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies and transfer the received materials to third parties. The review is confidential for the authors and is closed. The editorial Board of the edition sends to authors of the submitted materials copies of reviews or the motivated refusal, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation at receipt in edition of the corresponding request.
5. The term of reviewing is determined by the editor-in-chief of the journal and established in consultation with the reviewer, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most rapid publication of the manuscript, but may not exceed three months from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review within one week from the date of receipt of the manuscript and notify the editor-in-chief of the journal in writing.
6. The review highlights the following issues:
* whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the theme stated in the title;
* whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the thematic areas of the journal;
* does the list of references correspond to the subject of the article;
* does the content of the manuscript have scientific novelty;
* correspondence of the manuscript to the scientific level of the journal;
* whether the publication of the manuscript is appropriate in view of the previously published literature on this issue and whether it is of interest to readers of the journal;
* what exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript, what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).
7. The reviewer has the right to give recommendations to the author and editorial staff to improve the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation containing one of the following options:
* recommend to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal;
* recommend to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal after revision, taking into account the comments;
* do not recommend the manuscript for publication.
8. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the manuscript, the author is sent the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account in the preparation of a new version of the article or argued (partially or completely) to refute them. Revised (revised) by the author of the manuscript is re-sent for review.
9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to apply to the editorial office of the journal with a reasoned request in writing to send his manuscript for review to another reviewer with the relevant arguments. In this case, the editorial Board sends the manuscript for re - (additional) review, or provides the author with a reasoned refusal.
10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the appropriateness and timing of the publication after reviewing is made by the editor – in-chief, and if necessary-the editorial Board of the journal. The editorial Board informs about the decision of the author by sending a written reasoned response by e-mail or otherwise.
11. The editorial Board of the journal provides objective judgments of reviewers.
12. Reviewers should not have a conflict of interests.
Indexation
Articles in "Digital Sociology" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Digital Sociology" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Digital Sociology"
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. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Digital Sociology" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Digital Sociology" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Digital Sociology" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. 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.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor 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 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 editor of "Digital Sociology" 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 authorised 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 – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. 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 behaviour 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.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. 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.
4.3.2. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, 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. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.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.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. 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.
4.6.2. 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.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. 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.
4.8.2. 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.
4.9. 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 "Digital Sociology" 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 "Digital Sociology" 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 "Digital Sociology" 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 specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- State University of Management
Author fees
Publication in "Digital Sociology" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle 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
"Digital Sociology" 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 "Digital Sociology", 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 "Digital Sociology" 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)
Repository policy
The editors of the journal allow authors to place without restrictions all versions of the article (submitted version, accepted version, published version) in an institutional or other repository of the author’s choice without embargo.
