Editorial principles

1. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE JOURNAL
2. PEER REVIEW POLICY
3. AUTHORSHIP POLICY
4. RETRACTION POLICY
5. GENERATIVE AI POLICY
6. DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
7. ACCESS TO DATA POLICY
8. OPEN ACCESS PRINCIPLES
9. FINANCIAL POLICY
10. ADVERTISING POLICY
11. PREPRINT POLICY
12. POST-PUBLICATION POLICY

1. JOURNAL ETHICS

   The Historical Reporter/Istorecheskiy Vestnik/ Istorechesky Vestnik (hereinafter referred to as «Journal» or «the Journal») adheres to ethical principles, transparency standards, and best practices in scholarly publishing developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), as well as the provisions of the Declaration of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP) «Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications» (https://rassep.ru/sovet-po-etike/manifesty/deklaratsiya/).

   Outlined below are the key principles governing the activities of the editorial board, reviewers, authors, and publisher of the Journal.

   The Journal takes publication ethics seriously. The editorial board reserves the right to refuse publication of an article, even after a decision of acceptance has been communicated to the author, if serious issues are later discovered with its scientific/academic content or if Journal policies have been violated. The published articles in such cases are subject to retraction (after thorough investigation).

   1. Responsibilities of the Editors
      1. Editors shall bear personal responsibility for the content of the materials published in the Journal. The main criteria for publication decisions are the reliability of the presented data and the academic significance of the research.
      2. Editors shall ensure the objectivity and justification of their decisions, excluding the influence of commercial interests. They guarantee a fair and transparent process of independent peer review.
      3. Editors shall evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic content.
      4. Editors shall refrain from working with manuscripts in which they may have a conflict of interest.
      5. Editors shall guarantee that articles authored by the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board are considered impartially, just like those submitted by external authors.
      6. Editors shall ensure the publication of corrections, clarifications/corrections, or retractions when necessary to maintain scientific integrity and transparency.
      7. Editors shall be responsible for maintaining communication with authors, including providing timely responses within the accepted timeframe. They should also encourage authors to share feedback on ways to improve the Journal’s work.
      8. Editors must respect authors’ requests to exclude specific individuals from the review process. The Editorial Board must be informed of such a request, and the author should be notified in due time whether the request to exclude certain reviewers has been granted.
   2. Responsibilities of the Reviewers
      1. Reviewers shall accept manuscripts for evaluation only if they possess sufficient expertise in the relevant field. If a reviewer lacks the necessary qualification or cannot meet the review deadlines, they must inform the editors and decline the review.
      2. Reviewers shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors before beginning the review.
      3. Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript’s contents and not share it with third parties.
      4. Reviewers shall not use information obtained from the manuscript for personal or commercial purposes.
      5. Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific content, avoiding subjective judgments.
      6. Reviewers shall provide well-founded and objective conclusions, considering all key aspects of the work under review.
      7. Reviewers shall carry out their work on a voluntary basis and will not receive monetary compensation.
   3. Responsibilities of the Authors
      1. Authors submitting manuscripts to the Journal shall confirm their agreement with its ethical standards.
      2. Authors shall submit only original materials that have not been previously published elsewhere. When using previously published materials, authors shall obtain written permission from the copyright holder.
      3. Authors shall not submit the same manuscript to more than one Journal simultaneously.
      4. All co-authors shall consent to the submission and publication of the manuscript in the Journal.
      5. Authors shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors.
      6. Authors shall properly cite sources, including their own previous work, in order to avoid self-plagiarism.
      7. The primary obligation of authors is to provide an accurate and complete account of the research conducted. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.
      8. Authors should be prepared to provide raw data at the editors’ request during the review process. They shall respond promptly and conscientiously to reviewers’ comments and suggestions through communication with the editor-in-chief.
      9. The corresponding author shall keep all co-authors informed of any changes or editorial requests and shall not make decisions without the written consent of all co-authors.
   4. Responsibilities of the Publisher
      1. The publisher of the Journal is the Autonomous Nonprofit Organization «Runivers».
      2. The publisher does not interfere with the editorial policy of the Journal, ensuring the independence of the editorial board’s work.
   5. Intellectual Property

      Issues of intellectual property are governed by the legislation of the Russian Federation and applicable international laws and agreements. The editorial board shall pay special attention to the protection of intellectual property rights, cooperating with legal experts to prevent violations of current legislation and international conventions.

   6. Principles of Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility

      Researchers shall have the right to pursue academic inquiry and share knowledge and ideas freely, without censorship. At the same time, they shall adhere to the principles of intellectual honesty and avoid any potential harm that may result from the research process or its publication—to individuals, society, or the environment.

   7. Positive and Negative Impacts of Research

      Research must not violate the dignity and rights of participants (individuals or groups) and communities related to the research topic, or the environment in which it is conducted. The rights associated with tangible and intangible heritage, natural resources, and the environment must also be respected.

      Publication of research results may also cause indirect harm—for example, stigmatization of vulnerable groups or misuse of findings for unintended purposes (such as policies undermining human rights).

      The advancement of knowledge and understanding is a public good. However, although the pursuit of knowledge is valuable, potential harm may sometimes outweigh the benefits of conducting or disseminating research. In such cases, it may be appropriate to decide not to conduct the research or not to publish the manuscript. Assessment of research risks and benefits underlies the editorial process for all scholarly publications. Editors shall consider potential harm from publication, seek external advice on risks, and, in cases of significant risk that outweighs potential benefit, may decline publication (or correct, retract, remove, or otherwise modify the already published material).

   8. Editorial Independence

      This policy reflects the Journal’s commitment to the fundamental principle of editorial independence and intellectual freedom, which form the basis for objective editorial decision-making. Adherence to this principle ensures that all editorial processes and decisions remain free from commercial or external influence.

      Core principles of editorial independence:

      • Independence of editorial decisions: all editorial decisions regarding the review, acceptance, rejection, and publication of articles are made exclusively by the Journal’s editorial team, based on scientific/academic criteria, the quality of the submitted material, and its relevance to the Journal’s scope. These decisions are made independently of any commercial or external interests and are guided solely by the pursuit of scientific and editorial integrity.
      • Editorial structure and responsibility: the management of editorial processes within the Journal is carried out strictly within its established editorial structure, which includes the Editor-in-Chief, the editorial board, reviewers, and, when necessary, an ethics committee. These bodies shall work in close coordination to ensure the independence, objectivity, and professionalism of editorial decisions.
      • Prohibition of external influence: interference by commercial entities, external sponsors, or other interested parties in the editorial decision-making process is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence, comment on, or otherwise interfere with editorial decisions are unacceptable under any circumstances.
      • Maintaining editorial integrity: the principle of strict editorial independence shall be binding for all participants in the editorial process. Any deviation from this principle undermines the integrity of the editorial process and may damage the Journal’s scholarly reputation. The Journal is committed to upholding this principle in all situations to maintain the trust of the academic community.
   9. Appeals Policy

      Authors who believe there are valid grounds to appeal the editorial decision to revise or reject their manuscript may submit a formal appeal. Such requests must be submitted in writing via the Journal’s official email address, with the subject line «Appeal» and the manuscript number indicated. Appeals are accepted only for manuscripts that have undergone peer review and are not considered for manuscripts rejected prior to review. The appeal must be submitted by the corresponding author with the agreement of all co-authors.

      The corresponding author shall:

      1. Submit the appeal within one month from the date of receiving the editorial decision;
      2. Not submit the manuscript to another Journal or initiate a transfer process while the appeal is under consideration;
      3. Provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for disagreement with the decision, responding to each editor and/or reviewer comment that may have influenced the rejection, with supporting evidence attached. Appeals will not be considered if the manuscript was rejected due to non-compliance with the Journal’s editorial policies or due to disagreements about the level of interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the Journal;
      4. Provide evidence if the author believes that an editor or reviewer made technical errors in evaluating the manuscript;
      5. Provide evidence if the author believes that an editor or reviewer may have had a conflict of interest or demonstrated bias.

      Appeals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected and will not be reviewed. The time required for consideration may vary depending on the circumstances of the appeal.

      The corresponding author may withdraw the appeal by sending an email to the same address, with the subject line «Withdrawal of Appeal» and the manuscript number. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated representative (for example, a member of the editorial board), depending on the nature of the appeal. In cases where a conflict of interest involving the editor is declared, the appeal will be reviewed by an editorial board member who was not involved in the editorial process of the appealed manuscript. Each appeal will be assessed in accordance with the Journal’s policies and objectives. The Journal will notify the corresponding author of the outcome.

      Agreement by the Journal to re-evaluate a decision does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript. The reconsideration process may involve additional peer review (by previous or new reviewers and/or editors) and may require substantial revision of the manuscript. Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted, and the decision on the appeal is final.

      The Journal does not consider appeals that are part of a legal dispute and reserves the right to suspend or terminate the appeal process in such cases.

   10. Promotion of Ethical Research and Response to Research Misconduct
       1. Editors shall ensure that research published in the Journal has been conducted in accordance with relevant international ethical guidelines. When necessary, editors may request official confirmation of the research’s ethical status from an appropriate body (such as an ethics committee or institutional review board). However, editors should recognize that such certification does not in itself guarantee ethical compliance and does not replace adherence to international standards.
       2. Editors are obligated to take action whenever they suspect or become aware of research misconduct. This obligation applies regardless of whether the material is ultimately published.
       3. Editors shall not reject manuscripts suspected of research misconduct out of hand (including plagiarism, data fabrication, or inappropriate authorship). They have an ethical duty to investigate such cases further. Editors shall first await a response from the author or authors under suspicion. If the response does not resolve the concerns, the editor shall contact the relevant employer, institution, or governmental body (including regulatory authorities or a national research integrity organization) and provide the available information. All investigations shall remain confidential to avoid misinformation or reputational harm to the author. Editors shall not make conclusive statements identifying a manuscript as unethical until the investigation is complete. The editor-in-chief and editorial board members shall be informed of the results, and all collected materials shall be transferred to the editorial council. The editorial council and the publisher shall jointly make the final decision in accordance with applicable laws, up to and including public disclosure of confirmed instances of academic misconduct.
   11. Encouraging Scholarly Debate
       1. In pursuit of its stated mission and objectives, the Journal seeks to foster an environment for broad academic debate within its fields of study. Editors shall actively encourage scholarly discussion and be open to publishing critical or controversial articles.
       2. Authors whose work is subject to critique shall be given the opportunity to respond via the Journal.
       3. Studies reporting negative results shall not be excluded from consideration.

2. PEER REVIEW POLICY

   Manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal undergo a multi-stage evaluation process based on the principles of transparency, objectivity, and adherence to academic standards.

   The main stages of this process are as follows:

   1. Upon receipt, a manuscript is registered and subjected to an initial assessment according to formal and qualitative criteria: compliance with the Journal’s general scope; conformity with content and formatting requirements. Articles that do not meet these criteria shall not be accepted for review. Authors are usually notified of this decision within 10 days of the manuscript’s receipt by the editorial office.
   2. A manuscript accepted for review is assigned to a member of the editorial team, who will correspond with the author and send the manuscript for review to two experts recognized in the field of the reviewed article and who have published on the subject in the last three years. In contentious cases, the article may be sent to more than two experts, including external reviewers and members of the Journal’s editorial board.
   3. The Journal applies a double-blind peer review process. The reviewer receives the manuscript without the authors’ names, and the author does not know the reviewer’s identity. The review process generally takes four to six weeks.
   4. Following the review, the article may be accepted for publication (4.1), returned to the author for revision (4.2), or rejected (4.3). If necessary, copies of the reviewers’ reports are sent to the authors.
      1. If the review is positive, the editors shall include the manuscript in the pool for further preparation for publication (see section 7).
      2. A revised manuscript is resubmitted to the reviewer, who shall evaluate whether the author’s revisions adequately address the comments and/or whether the author’s refusal to revise certain points is justified. If the author completely refuses to revise the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments, the article shall be withdrawn from consideration and rejected.
      3. In the case of a negative review, the article is considered by a working group of the editorial council, which shall decide either to reject the article or to obtain an additional review from an independent expert. The author is notified of the rejection by email.
   5. Possible reasons for rejection following peer review include: incorrect or incomplete statistics, misinterpretation of results, inadequate or insufficient methodology, an insufficient or biased sample, unclear text, improperly formulated research objectives, inaccurate or insufficient data, an inadequate, inaccurate, or outdated literature review, poor-quality tables or figures, and similar deficiencies. The reviewer must justify their conclusion and provide recommendations to the authors.
   6. The author has the right to appeal the reviewer’s decision to reject the manuscript or withdraw it from consideration. To do so, the author must submit an appeal to the editorial office addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must include a detailed explanation of the reasons for disagreement with the reviewer’s decision, arguments in favor of reconsideration, and, if appropriate, a revised version of the manuscript. If irreconcilable differences arise between the authors and reviewers regarding revisions, the Editor-in-Chief shall be the one resolving the conflict. The decisions of the Editor-in-Chief are final.
   7. Two positive reviews do not guarantee publication of the manuscript. The final decision on acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
   8. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall make and approve the final decision on the date of publication in accordance with the editorial workflow during issue preparation. The author is informed of the final editorial decision.
   9. When selecting reviewers, preference is given to external experts. However, if necessary, manuscripts may be reviewed by members of the editorial board, without any change in the review procedure. Articles authored by the Editor-in-Chief are reviewed exclusively by external reviewers.
   10. A reviewer may decline to review a manuscript for any reason. The reviewer must promptly notify the Academic Secretary of the Journal or the Editor-in-Chief of their refusal.
   11. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years. The Journal shall provide copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon official request.
   12. Reviews of manuscripts submitted to the Journal from 2024 onward shall be published on the Scientific Electronic Library (e-Library) platform.
   13. The editorial office does not store manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned to the authors.
   Reviewer Guidelines

   One of the key criteria for evaluating academic Journals hosted on the Scientific Electronic Library (e-Library) platform is peer review. The Journal employs a double-blind review system; so only the text of the review is made publicly available on the platform, while the reviewer’s identity remains hidden. At the same time, information about the reviewer is uploaded to the e-Library system, and participation in the review process is recorded in the scholar’s Science Index profile.

   The editorial team of the Journal shall make its reviewer guidelines publicly available to improve the quality of expert evaluations and to familiarize authors with the structure and content of a review.

   The reviewer shall provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal remarks directed at the author(s) are unacceptable. The reviewer shall express opinions clearly and with supporting arguments.

   If a manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer should indicate in the review the need for revision and provide recommendations for improvement, identifying inaccuracies and errors made by the author.

   The editorial board expects that the review process should:

   • prevent the publication of low-quality articles;
   • ensure that the data presented are accurate, sufficiently detailed, and compliant with accepted international standards where applicable;
   • verify that the article includes references to key prior works in the field;
   • confirm the correctness of the author’s interpretation of the results and the validity of the conclusions;
   • and, based on this, make an informed publication decision and provide authors with constructive recommendations for improvement where necessary.

   The review may be written in free form or according to a template provided to reviewers, but must address the following points:

   1. Relevance of the research topic;
   2. Originality of the study and the results;
   3. Completeness and accuracy of the literature review;
   4. Clarity of the research objectives and their correspondence to the presented data;
   5. Appropriateness of research methods;
   6. Consistency of results with the research objectives;
   7. Evaluation of the results and comparison with previously published studies;
   8. Validity of conclusions;
   9. Academic and/or practical significance of the results;
   10. Clarity of presentation (including tables and figures);
   11. Inclusion of all significant references relevant to the topic;
   12. Quality of the abstract and accuracy of selected keywords;
   13. Compliance with ethical standards and absence of conflicts of interest.

   In the concluding section of the review, the reviewer must provide a reasoned overall evaluation of the manuscript and make one of the following recommendations:

   • the manuscript is recommended for publication;
   • the manuscript is recommended for publication after revision;
   • the manuscript is not recommended for publication.

   These recommendations are based on materials from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the collection «Preparation and publication of a scientific journal. International practice on the ethics of editing, reviewing, publishing and authorship of scientific publications: A collection of translations», compiled by O. V. Kirillova. Moscow: Financial University, 2013. 140 pp.

3. AUTHORSHIP POLICY

   Authorship (i.e. the team of authors) should be limited to those individuals who have made a significant contribution to the creation of the submitted research. These individuals are listed as co-authors. All others who contributed to the development of the article should be mentioned in the «Acknowledgments» section.

   Each author must approve the submitted version of the manuscript (as well as any substantially revised versions in which they have participated). Each author bears personal responsibility not only for their own contribution but also for the integrity and accuracy of the entire manuscript, in cases where questions arise about any part of it, including those to which the author did not personally contribute. The Journal requires that all authors sign a submission letter and that the order of authorship stated in the cover letter be respected. Submission of a manuscript to the Journal implies that all the listed authors agree with its content, authorship order, and contribution details. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that such agreement is reached, as well as for communication with the Journal before and after publication. The corresponding author is also responsible for submitting the conflict of interest statement on behalf of all authors.

   The corresponding author shall be responsible for:

   1. Ensuring compliance with standards of transparency and data reproducibility;
   2. Safeguarding original data/materials according to best practices for potential re-analysis;
   3. Confirming that the presented data/materials correspond to the originals;
   4. Anticipating and minimizing barriers to data/material sharing;
   5. Verifying the validity of the author list and the accuracy of contribution descriptions.

   After acceptance of the manuscript, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of the proofs, including co-authors’ names, affiliations, and addresses. After publication, the corresponding author remains the main contact for all inquiries related to the article and must promptly inform co-authors of any issues that may arise.

   Any changes to the author list after submission—such as reordering, addition, or removal of authors—must be approved by all authors and accompanied by a statement describing each author’s contribution and the rationale for the change. The editorial office does not mediate disputes regarding authorship.

   Author Contribution Statement

   The Journal supports transparency in research by publishing author contribution statements that specify each author’s role, following the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system.

   Author Identification

   To enhance transparency in the publication process, authors are required to provide an ORCID/Author ID.

4. RETRACTION POLICY

   An article may be retracted at any stage of review or after publication if violations of the Journal’s ethical standards are identified. The purpose of retraction is to inform readers about materials that contain serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data unreliability may result from honest errors or intentional misconduct (such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or concealment of a conflict of interest that distorts data interpretation or recommendations). Retraction also serves to uphold scientific integrity by warning authors and readers that the results of a retracted article must not be used in further research. The key goal of retraction is to maintain the integrity of scientific literature by removing misleading or inaccurate data from circulation. Thus, retraction contributes to maintaining high academic standards and public trust in published research, ensuring that only reliable data remain part of the scholarly record.

   Main reasons for retraction:

   • Plagiarism;
   • Claims by third parties regarding copyright infringement of the article or its parts;
   • The published article contains serious errors that compromise its scientific/academic value;
   • Request by the author.

   The retraction procedure includes an investigation, documentation of findings, and publication of a retraction notice in the next issue of the Journal. Retracted articles are removed from bibliographic databases.

   Authors may disagree with the editorial decision, but this does not negate the Journal’s right to proceed with retraction. A retraction may be initiated either by the author(s) or by the editorial board. Retraction is not considered a punitive measure but rather a means of maintaining the integrity and transparency of scholarly communication and dissemination of knowledge.

   If the editorial board decides to retract an article following an investigation—whether based on third-party information or an author’s request—the author(s) (the corresponding author in the case of multiple authors) will receive a notification and shall be informed of the wording and justification for the retraction. If the author(s) should refuse to retract the article, the editorial board has the right to proceed without their consent, as it bears responsibility for the Journal’s content and the reliability of the published data.

5. GENERATIVE AI POLICY

   With the growing development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools (hereinafter referred to as “AI”), which are increasingly used by authors in preparing academic manuscripts, the Journal has established a policy to regulate their use. The Journal shall continue to monitor developments in this area and shall update and refine its policy as needed.

   Policy for Authors

   Use AI in Academic Writing

   This policy shall apply exclusively to the process of text preparation and does not cover the use of AI for data analysis or generating scientific conclusions as part of the research itself.

   Purpose of AI Use

   Authors may use AI only to improve the readability and linguistic quality of their manuscripts. Such technologies must be used under human supervision, and all AI-generated text must be carefully checked and edited by the authors. It is important to note that AI may produce text that appears authoritative but contains inaccuracies, omissions, or biases.

   Responsibility and Disclosure

   Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their work. The use of AI must be disclosed in the manuscript, and this disclosure will appear in the published article to ensure transparency and strengthen trust among all participants in the publication process.

   Exclusion of AI as an Author

   AI cannot be listed as an author or a co-author. Authorship implies accountability and responsibilities that only humans can fulfill. Authors must ensure that their work is original, adheres to ethical standards, and does not infringe upon the rights of third parties.

   Use of AI in Illustrations and Graphic Design

   Prohibition on the Creation or Modification of Images Using AI

   The use of AI to create, alter, or process images in manuscripts is strictly prohibited. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, and color balance are permitted only if they do not distort the data presented.

   Exception

   If the use of AI is part of the research methodology (for example, in biomedical imaging), it must be described in detail in the «Methods» section, including the name and characteristics of the AI tool used.

   Policy for Reviewers

   Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Uploading them or any parts of them into any AI-based tool is strictly prohibited, as this may compromise author confidentiality and intellectual property rights. This rule also applies to reviews, since they may contain confidential information about manuscripts and their authors. The use of AI to assist in peer review is not permitted, as peer review requires critical thinking and independent judgment, which are beyond the capabilities of AI. The reviewer bears full responsibility for the content of their review. The Journal allows the use of secure AI-based technologies for checking manuscript completeness, detecting plagiarism, and identifying suitable reviewers, provided that confidentiality standards are strictly maintained.

   Policy for Editors

   All submitted manuscripts shall remain confidential. Uploading them or any part of them into any AI-based tool is not permitted, as this may violate authors’ rights and confidentiality. Accordingly, the use of generative AI to assist in editorial decision-making is prohibited. The evaluation of manuscripts requires critical thinking and objective judgment, which only human editors can provide. Editors bear full responsibility for the editorial process, the final decision on the manuscript, and communicating that decision to the authors.

6. DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

   To ensure transparency and allow readers to independently assess potential biases, the Journal requires authors to declare any financial and/or non-financial interests related to the research described. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a conflict of interest statement on behalf of all co-authors.

   A conflict of interest is defined as any financial or non-financial interest that may directly undermine – or be perceived as undermining – the objectivity, integrity, or value of a publication, potentially influencing authors' judgment or behavior in the presentation, analysis, or interpretation of data.

   Financial Conflicts of Interest

   1. Funding: Support for research (including salaries, equipment, consumables, and other expenses) from organizations that may gain or lose financially as a result of this publication. Any role played by the funding organization in the study's conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation must be disclosed;

   2. Employment: Recent (during the research period), current, or anticipated employment in any organization that could benefit financially from this publication;

   3. Personal Financial Interests: Ownership of stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially from this publication; consulting fees or other remuneration (including fees for participation in symposia) from organizations that may benefit financially; patents or patent applications (granted or pending) filed by the authors or their institutions whose value may be affected by the publication. For patents and applications, the following information must be disclosed: applicant (author or institution), inventor name(s), application number, application status, and the specific aspect of the manuscript covered by the patent application.

   Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest

   Non-financial conflicts of interest may take various forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations or individuals. Authors and reviewers shall declare any unpaid roles or relationships that could influence the publication process. Examples of non-financial conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

   1. Unpaid membership in a governmental or non-governmental organization;

   2. Unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organization/group;

   3. Unpaid advisory role in a commercial organization;

   4. Consulting for a company.

   Authors

   Authors shall disclose and specify any conflicts of interest during manuscript submission through the submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for providing this statement on behalf of all co-authors. In the case of a double-blind peer review, reviewers will receive a minimal disclosure statement indicating the existence of financial or non-financial interests to prevent revealing author identities. Regardless of the review model, all authors shall include a statement at the end of the published article indicating the presence or absence of conflicts of interest, using one of the following standard forms:

   • «The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: …»;
   • «The authors declare no conflict of interest»;
   • «The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent disclosure of their conflict of interest in this work».

   Editors

   In cases of conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with submitted manuscripts, the editor shall transfer the manuscript to another member of the editorial board for consideration. Editors are required to request disclosure of any competing interests from all participants in the publication process. If a conflict of interest is discovered after publication, the editorial office shall issue a correction. The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board shall recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when conflicts of interest exist due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or organizations connected to the manuscript.

   Reviewers

   The Journal encourages reviewers to recuse themselves from the review process if they have a significant conflict of interest. Reviewers shall inform editors of any conflicts of interest that might reasonably be perceived as relevant. Editors take such disclosures into account when evaluating reviewers' recommendations.

   The Journal has established the following procedure for submission and review of articles by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Council, and the Editorial Board: manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Council members, or Editorial Board members undergo all stages of peer review in accordance with the Journal's Review Policy. Peer review of the Editor-in-Chief's publications shall be conducted by external reviewers selected by the Deputy Editors-in-Chief to ensure impartial evaluation of the Editor-in-Chief's research work.

   Permission to Use Third-Party Materials

   The Journal's policy on obtaining permissions for the use of third-party materials requires compliance with the following key provisions:

   1. Mandatory Permission Requirement

      Any reproduction of a substantial part of a work protected by copyright shall require formal permission from the rights holder. This applies not only to texts but also to all visual materials such as illustrations, diagrams, tables, photographs, and any other previously published materials.

   2. Procedure for Obtaining Permission

      To obtain permission to use material published by another publisher, the author shall:

      • Identify the rights holder of the material intended for use;
      • Contact the rights holder (e.g., publisher or author) to obtain formal written permission. This can be done through specialized licensing platforms or by direct request to the publisher;
      • Ensure that the permission explicitly covers the use of the material in the context of a scholarly publication, specifying the intended form of use (e.g., publication in an academic Journal or an online repository).
   3. Documentation of Permission

      After obtaining permission from the rights holder, the author shall:

      • Include written confirmation in the set of documents submitted with the manuscript;
      • Provide proper citations and acknowledgments in the article text or under illustrations and tables, in accordance with the requirements of the rights holder.
   4. Author's Responsibility

      The author is responsible for:

      • Providing proof of permission to use any copyrighted material in their article;
      • Indicating the source and ensuring compliance with licensing terms, if applicable (for example, under open Creative Commons licenses).
   5. Exceptions to the Permission Requirement

      There are certain cases where permission may not be required, such as:

      1. Public Domain: materials not protected by copyright because they are in the public domain;
      2. Open Licenses: materials published under Creative Commons licenses may be used in compliance with the terms of the license (for example, attribution requirements and restrictions on commercial use or modification).

      Compliance with this policy is essential to ensure the legal integrity of published works and to protect the rights of all parties involved. Authors shall exercise caution when using third-party materials to avoid possible copyright infringements, as such violations may result in rejection or retraction of the article after publication.

7. ACCESS TO DATA POLICY

   The editorial board of the Journal is committed to maintaining transparency and reproducibility in academic research. This policy applies to data not directly included in the manuscript text but which may be needed by reviewers or other researchers to verify the validity and transparency of the findings presented in the article.

   Authors' Responsibilities

   Authors shall be prepared to provide any additional data supporting their research results if requested by the editorial board or reviewers during the review process. Such data may include:

   1. Raw data (e.g., observational or experimental results);
   2. Data processing methods, scripts, and algorithms;
   3. Experimental materials and protocols that enable reproducibility of results;
   4. Any intermediate stages of analysis that allow verification of the final results.

   Formats and Access to Data

   Data provided by authors upon request should be available in reusable formats (for example, CSV, Excel, or text formats for data; PDF or structured documents for methods and descriptions). Data may be:

   1. Shared directly with reviewers through the Journal's platform under confidentiality; or
   2. Stored in open-access data repositories such as Zenodo or Mendeley Data, with the option of temporary access restrictions until article publication.

   Role of Reviewers

   Reviewers have the right to request additional data from authors for a more thorough assessment of the findings presented. Such requests must be justified and limited to data directly relevant to the validation of the research results.

   Data Confidentiality

   If additional data are provided to reviewers during the peer-review process, the editorial board shall guarantee confidentiality. The supplementary data shall be accessible only to reviewers and editorial staff and shall not be published without the authors' consent.

   Data Publication

   After peer review and subsequence acceptance, authors are encouraged to publish supplementary data in open-access repositories to promote transparency and further reuse of research data. All links to repositories and datasets must be included in the published article.

   Refusal to Provide Data

   If authors decline to provide additional data upon a justified request from reviewers, the editorial board shall reserve the right to suspend the review process or reject the manuscript, considering the importance of the data for validating the research findings.

   Monitoring and Responsibility

   The editorial board reserves the right to request and verify data availability from authors in response to justified concerns about transparency after publication. In cases of noncompliance with principles of openness and transparency, the board may initiate an investigation and review of the publication.

   The editorial board highly values authors' contributions to open science and supports efforts to ensure data reuse. This policy aims to uphold high standards of research ethics, fostering transparency and reproducibility in scholarly work.

8. OPEN ACCESS PRINCIPLES

   The Historical Reporter is an open-access journal, and its content is distributed under the Creative Commons International Public License (CC BY-NC).

   The Journal's open-access policy complies with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) – meaning that all articles are available online for users to freely read, download, copy, distribute, print; any one can search the articles and create link to them, index them, utilize them as software data, or generally use them for any lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers beyond those inseparable from Internet access itself.

   The Journal allows authors to retain copyright for their published materials without restriction. All articles published in the Journal are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

9. FINANCIAL POLICY

   The Journal is funded by the Autonomous Nonprofit Organization «Runivers», which serves as the founder and publisher of the Journal.

   The Journal does not charge authors any fees for publication or editorial processing.

10. ADVERTISING POLICY

    The Journal does not publish advertising materials. Decisions regarding the placement of advertisements are made solely by the publisher. The editorial board reserves the right to refuse any advertising material from the publisher if it does not align with the Journal's policy.

11. PREPRINT POLICY

    The Journal accepts manuscripts that have previously been posted by authors on personal or public websites not associated with other publishers.

12. POST-PUBLICATION POLICY

    If necessary, the article that has undergone peer review and editorial preparation may be subject to the following types of post-publication updates:

    1. Addendum
    2. Publisher's correction (erratum)
    3. Author's correction (corrigendum)

    Decisions regarding the publication of corrections are made by the Journal's editors based on recommendations from reviewers, editorial board members, or written requests from authors. Before publication of any correction, consultation with the article's authors is mandatory.

    1. Addendum. The addition of new material to an article that supplements its original content requires peer review. The additional material must be submitted as a new manuscript referencing the original article. Replacing part of the original text in a published article may take the form of a publisher's correction (erratum) or an author's correction (corrigendum).
    2. Publisher's Correction (erratum) is published when an error (e.g., typographical mistake or omission) introduced by the Journal during production significantly affects reader understanding. Minor or obvious typos do not require correction notices.
    3. Author's Correction (corrigendum) – If authors deem it necessary to make corrections after publication, they must submit a written request by email (info@historicalreporter.ru) with justification to the Journal's editorial office. The final decision to publish a corrigendum is made by the editors and editorial board members after evaluating the impact of the correction on the scientific/academic accuracy and significance of the article. In some cases, discovery of serious errors or inconsistencies in a published article may require its retraction.