Authorship and Attribution

Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia and its editors are committed to upholding the standards of academic integrity. These include proper crediting of academic labor, funding and conflicting interests.

The published work should adequately reflect the contribution of the authors. The list of authors should include (only) those authors who have significantly contributed to the manuscript (through the design of the study, data collection, and processing, interpretation, and reporting of results). Likewise, the order in which the authors are listed should reflect their contribution to the research process. While Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia cannot arbitrate in authorship disputes, the journal can decide not to publish the manuscript, edit/withdraw the already published article in case of an authorship dispute, or refer the matter to the author’s home institution(s).

All authors and (co)authors should correctly list their affiliations. In case the author(s) have changed their institutional affiliation, the institution credited should be the institution at which the author(s) have conducted the research.

All submissions to Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia must be made by the author or one of the co-authors. Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia will not review submissions made by third parties.

Intellectual Property and Permissions

Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia publishes only original articles that have not been previously published and contain no unlawful statements. Authors submitting work for publication must ensure that their articles do not infringe upon the rights of others, including but not limited to copyright, trademark, or privacy rights. Any use of third-party material, such as extended quotations, images, tables, or other copyrighted content, must be properly credited, with all necessary written permissions obtained by the author(s). The author assumes full responsibility for securing such permissions and for any potential copyright infringements. The publisher bears no liability for unauthorized use of third-party material within the submitted work.

Peer Review Process

Each submitted manuscript is initially evaluated through editorial review regarding the formal requirements (formatting, structure, style), the interest, the importance of the topic, scientific methodology, clarity of language, plagiatrism, and relevance to readers. If the submitted manuscript meets the journal criteria it is forwarded for a double-blind peer review.

All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two experts – researchers or academics working in the areas that fall within the journal's aim and scope. Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia has a policy of not assigning reviewers suggested by the authors, reviewers affiliated with the same institution as any one of the co-authors, and reviewers affiliated with the funding agency of any one of the co-authors. The entire peer-review process is confidential and involves only the parties involved, and no information or data is shared outside the system.

The peer-review process is handled through the online review system, where each article is assigned an editor, a section editor (from the editorial board of a journal) or a guest editor to conduct the peer-review process and at least two external peer reviewers. The review consists of a main written assessment, the reviewer’s suggestions of rejection or acceptance (the revision required), and conditionally additional comments in the submitted manuscript text file. The reviewers should complete the peer review within three weeks.

The entire peer review process with all associated documents is archived in the online system – all steps and communication are documented and can be traced. The archive is not shared with third parties – the journal manager, the editor, and the section editors have access to it. 

Reviewers must declare competing interests before submitting their review. In such cases, the manuscript will be forwarded to a new reviewer for evaluation. If the evaluations of the two reviewers differ significantly, the manuscript will be forwarded to a third reviewer.

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is the responsibility of the editors of the journal and at the last instance of the editor-in-chief and is based on the recommendations of the reviewers and their comments (both to the authors and to the editors), as well as on the recommendations of the section and/or guest editors. Even in cases where other editors – whether section editors, guest editors, or others – have notified the authors of an acceptance decision, the editor-in-chief, or a majority of the editorial team, reserves the right to overturn or reverse that decision if deemed necessary. Such reversals may occur, for instance, in light of newly raised concerns, ethical considerations, or procedural errors. Journal editors, editor-in-chief, section editors, and guest editors follow the COPE Guidelines for Editors.

The average time from article submission to its publication is 40 weeks. 

Research Data Repository Guidance

Scientific data requires the release of datasets accompanying the submited article, but we do not provide a data repository nor do we host the data ourselves (the data deposited with us will not be publicly available - only in the case of it being an integral part of the manuscript). Instead, authors should submit datasets to an appropriate public data repository. Whenever possible, data should be deposited in discipline-specific, community-recognized repositories. If no suitable discipline-specific repository exists, data should be submitted to a generalist repository.

Data Submission Requirements:

• Mandatory Deposit: Authors must deposit their data in a data repository as part of the manuscript submission process; otherwise, the manuscript will not be reviewed.
• Confidential Peer Review: Data may be temporarily deposited in these resources if the main repository does not support confidential peer review.

Repository Criteria:

• Licensing: Use open licenses (CC0 and CC-BY, or equivalents). Exceptions are for sensitive human-derived data, which should be shared under Data Usage Agreements (DUAs). Restrictive licenses (CC-SA, CC-NC, CC-ND) are generally not supported, except for third-party data where the original license must be retained.
• Access: Allow public access without barriers, except for sensitive human data requiring controlled access and DUAs. Basic login functionalities for non-sensitive data are acceptable if immediate access is granted without manual checks, but login-free access is preferred.
• Peer Review: All data must be available for peer review. If logins or barriers are necessary, provide confidential peer review options that do not reveal reviewer identities.
• Preservation: Ensure long-term preservation and persistence of datasets to maintain the integrity of the paper. Live data must be associated with all Data Descriptors.
• Persistent Identifiers: Provide stable persistent identifiers, such as DOIs, for submitted datasets.
• Subject-Specific Repositories: Use subject-specific repositories recognized by the scientific community whenever possible. General repositories should be used only if no suitable subject repository is available or meets the above requirements.

Recommended Repositories:

• Zenodo: Zenodo
• Dryad: Dryad
• Figshare: Figshare
• Harvard Dataverse: Harvard Dataverse

Finding a Repository:

• Authors may also use resources such as DataCite’s Repository Finder and the FAIRsharing registry to identify appropriate repositories for their data.

Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia adheres to FAIR Principles:   

• Findable: Data should be easy to find by both humans and machines. This includes having metadata and being assigned a persistent identifier like a DOI.
• Accessible: Data should be retrievable using standardized protocols, and the metadata should remain accessible even if the data itself is restricted.
• Interoperable: Data should be formatted in a way that allows it to be integrated with other data and work with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.
• Reusable: Data should be well-described so that it can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. Clear usage licenses should be applied to indicate how the data can be used by others.

By adhering to these guidelines, authors can ensure that their research data is properly deposited, accessible, and compliant with FAIR principles, enhancing the reproducibility and impact of their work.

The Large Language Models Usage and Declaration of Use (LLMs Terms of Use)

Due to the rapid developement of LLMs and their use in academic research and manustcript preparation LLMs Terms of Use wil be subject to frequent changes 

Disclaimer: Authors are required to disclose any use of large language models (LLMs) in the creation of their manuscript and in their research processes. The following guidelines outline permissible and non-permissible uses of LLMs in the preparation of submissions and scientific research. Failure to comply with these guidelines may result in the rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article.

Permissible Uses:

1. Initial Drafting: Authors may use LLMs to generate initial drafts or outlines. The use of LLMs for generating the first draft of a manuscript must be disclosed, and substantial human oversight and editing are required.
2. Grammar and Style Corrections: Authors may use LLMs for grammar checking, language polishing, and improving the readability of the text. Any such use should be noted in the acknowledgments.
3. Reference Generation: Authors may use LLMs to help generate reference lists or suggest relevant literature, provided that the authors verify and ensure the accuracy and relevance of the references.
4. Supplementary Materials: Authors may use LLMs to create supplementary materials such as abstracts, summaries, or data descriptions, with proper oversight and verification.
5. LLMs Usage as part of Research (Computational Sciences): Authors may use LLMs as an intergral part of Computational Sciences research. The prompts used in research must be   submitted as supplementary materials (or made available through the link to external data repository with valid link and assigned DOI) for proper oversight and verification and ensuring reproducibility of scientific research under FAIR data principles. Guidelines and exceptions are listed in Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines.

Non-Permissible Uses:

1. Undisclosed Primary Writing: Authors must not use LLMs to generate substantial portions of the manuscript text without proper disclosure. The intellectual contribution should primarily come from the authors.
2. Unverified Content: Authors must not use LLMs to generate content that is not verified for accuracy, especially in the context of data, factual information, or references.
3. Automated Research Findings: Authors must not use LLMs to interpret research data or generate findings and conclusions. All interpretations and conclusions should be the result of the authors' analysis and understanding.
4. Ethical Misrepresentation: Authors must not use LLMs to create deceptive or misleading content, including falsifying data, generating fake references, or creating false narratives.

Declaration of Use: In the manuscript's acknowledgments section, authors must include a statement declaring any use of LLMs in the creation of the manuscript and concuct of research. An example statement might be:

Use of LLMs for Manuscript Preparation:

"The authors acknowledge the use of [specific LLM tool, e.g., GPT-4] for initial drafting, language polishing, and grammar checking of this manuscript. All content generated by the LLM was reviewed and edited by the authors to ensure accuracy and integrity."

Use of LLMs as Research Tool:

"The authors have submitted the prompts and other relevant datasets used for generating content with large language models [specific LLM tool, e.g., GPT-4] as part of the supplementary datasets accompanying this manuscript and/or provided a valid link to a data repository storing the datasets. These prompts and datasets were integral to the research process and the development of this article."

Use of LLMs for Manuscript Preparation and as a Research Tool:

"The authors acknowledge the use of [specific LLM tool, e.g., GPT-4] for initial drafting, language polishing, and grammar checking of this manuscript. All content generated by the LLM was reviewed and edited by the authors to ensure accuracy and integrity. Additionally, the authors have submitted the prompts and other relevant datasets used for research with LLMs as part of the supplementary datasets accompanying this manuscript and/or provided a valid link to a data repository storing the datasets. These prompts and datasets were integral to the research process and the development of this article."

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals and complaints about the peer review process and the editor's decision are welcomed but must be substantiated with new information and data and clearly argumentative. Three member team from the ranks of the Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia's editorial board will be appointed to handle the appeal and complaint process which will be done in confidence – including only the parties directly involved. If the author(s) wish to appeal and/or complain about the process or decision outside of the peer review system (if it is perceived to be of such nature), the publisher's management team should be contacted (for example suspicion of competing interest on part of the author(s), reviewer(s), editor(s), journal or the publisher). The same applies in a case of suspicion of a breach of ethics and/or suspicion of misconduct on the part of the editors or review team. Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia follows the COPE Code of Conduct. 

Ethics and Malpractice

Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia and its editors seek to protect the integrity of scientific research and the reputation of the journal against malpractice and breaches of academic integrity.

Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia endorses definitions of research integrity and malpractice as adopted by the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code), which defines three major categories of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (see section 3 of the ALLEA Code (pdf)). Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia further adopts ALLEA’s definition of unacceptable practices (as outlined in section 3 of the ALLEA code). It also counts as a form of academic malpractice the use of excessive self-citation and citation manipulation (citations within prearranged groups of authors). Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia’s understanding of citation manipulation relies on COPE discussion document. 

All authors must commit to respecting the guidelines and recommendations of the ALLEA code both in the stage of conducting research and in the stage of dissemination of findings. The published research must fully comply with the standards of research ethics set by ethical committees of their home institutions. If these lack clear definitions and procedures or are not yet developed, the authors should comply with the requirements of the internationally accepted codes such as ALLEA and COPE.

Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia and its editors take violations of research integrity very seriously. The journal will do whatever possible within its organizational capacity, and human and financial resources to protect academic and research integrity.

When informed about potential breaches of academic integrity, Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia will form a three-member team from the ranks of its editorial board members to investigate the claims. The editor(s) will act on the ground of the team’s recommendations. The whole investigation will be done in confidence – including only the parties directly involved. The actions can include, but are not limited to: publishing corrections, retracting the article, notifying the relevant bodies of author’s institution and/or learned societies, or legal action.

Competing Interests

In order to protect the scientific integrity of the publication, HSSP and IRRIS requires the author(s), reviewer(s), editor(s), journal, or publisher to disclose competing interests or conflicts of interest. Competing interests are financial and non-financial interests that directly undermine, or could be perceived to undermine, the objectivity, integrity, and value of a publication by potentially influencing the authors' judgment and actions regarding the objective presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data. The same principle applies to peer reviews and editorial decisions. Non-financial competing interests can take various forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations and individuals. We encourage authors and reviewers to declare any unpaid roles or relationships that may have an influence on the publication process.

Competing interests or potential conflicts of interest should be declared in the editor's notes at the time of submission and in the appropriate section at the time of review. If necessary, the author(s), reviewer(s), and editor(s) will be asked to submit and provide an additional written and signed disclosure of competing or conflicting interests.

Examples of competing financial interests include: Research support (e.g., salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses), employment (present or anticipated ), or financial benefits (stock or shares) of companies or organizations that stand to gain or lose financially from the publication. All authors are required to disclose research funds and grants and, if applicable, to describe the role of the funder in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the article; and/or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Examples of nonfinancial competing interests for authors include being a member of the editorial board of the journal Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia (or having been a member of the editorial board within the past 5 years) or current or past (within the past 5 years) membership on a committee of an organization that could benefit from publication of the paper.

Examples of non-financial competing interests for editors and reviewers include: Working for the same institution or organization as the author(s) of the manuscript, academic collaboration with the author(s) of the manuscript, co-authoring with the author(s) of the manuscript, personal relationships with an author(s) that might undermine or appear to undermine the objective evaluation of the manuscript. All the above refers to the period of the last 5 years

If editors are made aware of undeclared competing interests, they may choose to reject a manuscript immediately, regardless of the stage of review. If IRRIS and HSSP learns of an undisclosed competing interest after publication, it will take action in accordance with the policies of COPE.

Corrections and Retractions

Articles will be retracted or corrected only if requested by the author(s), if required by the results of an institutional investigation (by a three-person editorial team), or if third parties assert legitimate legal claims against the publisher, copyright holder, or author(s).

The article will be retracted if the reasons for retraction are so serious that the entire study or large portions of it are not suitable for inclusion in the scientific literature and corrections would not correct the problems and/or if the author's actions are judged by the publisher's investigative team to be such a serious breach of academic integrity even though corrections would be feasible.  

For each retracted article, the reason for the retraction and the author of the retraction will be clearly stated in the retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article and the article will be clearly marked as retracted (including the PDF file) and remain accessible on the website.

The content of a retracted article will be removed if legal restrictions have been placed on the publisher, copyright holder(s), or author(s), such as if the article is clearly defamatory or infringes on the rights of others, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information about the article will be kept on the website, along with information about the circumstances that led to the removal of the content.

Articles may be corrected or retracted for a variety of reasons, including: honest mistakes reported by authors, research misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data), duplicate or overlapping publication, fraudulent use of data, overt plagiarism, and unethical research.