Policies

Editorial principles

I. Journal Ethics

II. Peer Review Rules

III. Authorship Policy

IV. Retraction Policy

V. GenerativeAI policy

VI. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Policy

VII. Permission to use third party materials

VIII. Open Access Principles

IX. Financial Policy

X. Advertising Policy

XI. Preprint Policy

I. Journal ethics

The Historical Reporter (Istorichesky Vestnik) journal follows standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also adhere to the principles outlined in the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) Declaration on Ethical Principles for Scientific Publications, available online at https://rassep.ru/sovet-po-etike/manifesty/deklaratsiya/.

Hereinbelow are the main principles that guide the work of the journal's editorial board, reviewers, authors, and publisher.

The Historical Reporter (Istorichesky Vestnik) journal takes publication ethics seriously. We reserve the right to refuse to publish an article, even if the author has already been sent a decision on its publication, if it turns out that there are serious problems with the scientific content, or the editorial policies of the journal have been violated. Already published articles in such a situation are subject to retraction (after a thorough study of the case).

1. Journal Editors' Responsibilities

1.1. The editors of the journal shall be personally responsible for the content of the papers published. The main factors that determine whether to publish a paper are the accuracy of the data presented and the significance of the research.

1.2. Editors shall ensure that decisions are made objectively and fairly, free from the influence of commercial interests. They shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, transparent, and independent.

1.3. Editors shall evaluate manuscripts based solely on their scientific content.

1.4. Editors shall not consider manuscripts that could potentially lead to a conflict of interest.

1.5. Editors shall ensure that any necessary corrections, clarifications, or retractions are published wherever needed in a bid to maintain scientific accuracy and transparency.

2. Journal Reviewers' Responsibilities

2.1. Reviewers shall only accept manuscripts for evaluation if they have sufficient expertise in the relevant field. If the reviewer does not possess the necessary qualifications or cannot meet the deadlines, they shall notify the editorial office and withdraw from the review.

2.2. Before starting the review process, reviewers shall inform the editorial office of any potential conflicts of interest.

2.3. Reviewers shall keep the information in the manuscript confidential and not share it with third parties.

2.4. Reviewers shall not use the information in manuscripts for personal or commercial purposes.

2.5. Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts based solely on their scientific content, avoiding any subjective judgments.

2.6. Reviewers shall come to well-reasoned and unbiased conclusions, factoring in all the main aspects of the paper they are reviewing.

2.7. Reviewers shall perform their duties on a voluntary basis, and there shall be no material reward for their work.

3. Manuscript Authors' Responsibilities

3.1. When submitting manuscripts to the journal, authors shall confirm that they agree with the publication's ethical standards.

3.2. Authors shall submit only original papers that have not been published elsewhere before. When using previously published papers, authors shall obtain written permission from the copyright holder.

3.3. Authors shall not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time.

3.4. All co-authors shall agree to the publication of the manuscript in the journal.

3.5. Authors shall inform the editorial office of any potential conflicts of interest.

3.6. Authors shall correctly cite sources, including their own previous work, in a bid to avoid self-plagiarism.

3.7. The primary responsibility of authors is to present an accurate and exhaustive account of their research. Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable.

3.8. Authors shall be prepared to provide the raw data if the editorial board asks for it during the review process. They shall respond promptly and honestly to the reviewers' comments and observations, communicating with them through the editor-in-chief.

3.9. The corresponding author shall inform all co-authors about any editorial changes or suggestions. They shall not make any decisions without obtaining the written consent of all the co-authors.

4. Journal Publisher's Responsibilities

4.1. The Historical Reporter is published by the Runivers Autonomous Non-Profit Organization.

4.2. The publisher shall not interfere with the journal's editorial policy, which ensures the board's independence.

5. Intellectual Property

Matters related to intellectual property shall be regulated by the laws of the Russian Federation and by relevant international norms and agreements. The editorial board shall pay special attention to protecting intellectual property rights, cooperating with legal services to prevent any violations of current laws and international conventions.

6. Principles of Scientific Freedom and Scientific Responsibility

Researchers have the right to freely conduct scientific research and exchange knowledge and ideas without censorship. At the same time, they are obliged to adhere to the principles of intellectual honesty and to avoid any possible harm that may arise during the research or because of its publication in relation to others, society and the environment.

7. Impact and harm of research

Research must respect the dignity and rights of participants (individuals or groups) associated with the objects or topics under study, or the communities in which the research is conducted. The rights of tangible and intangible heritage, natural resources and the environment must be equally respected.

Indirect harms may also result from publication, such as stigmatization of vulnerable groups or misuse of results for unintended purposes (e.g. policies that undermine human rights).

The advancement of knowledge and understanding is a public good. However, although the pursuit of knowledge is considered a public good, considerations of potential harm may sometimes outweigh the purpose of finding or disseminating new knowledge, and it may be appropriate to decide not to carry out the research or not to publish the manuscript. Consideration of the risks and benefits of research underlies the editorial process of all forms of scientific publication. Editors may consider the potential harm of publication, seek external advice on the risk of harm and, in cases of significant risk that outweighs the potential benefit, may reject publication (or correct, retract, remove or otherwise change material already published).

8. Editorial Independence

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

Main provisions of the editorial independence policy

Independence of editorial decisions: all editorial decisions regarding peer review, acceptance, rejection and publication of articles are made exclusively by the editorial team of the Journal based on scientific criteria, the quality of the submitted material and its relevance to the scope of the Journal. These decisions remain independent of commercial or external interests and are aimed solely at maintaining scientific and editorial integrity.
Editorial structures and responsibilities: the editorial processes in the Journal are managed strictly within the editorial structure, including the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, reviewers, and, where appropriate, the ethics council. These structures work closely together to ensure the independence of editorial decisions, their scientific objectivity and compliance with high professional standards.
No external influence: Interference by representatives of commercial divisions, external sponsors or other interested parties in the editorial decision-making process is strictly prohibited. Interference of any kind, whether attempts to influence or comment on editorial decisions, is not allowed under any circumstances.
Maintaining editorial integrity: The principle of strict editorial independence is mandatory for all participants in the editorial process. Any deviation from this principle undermines the integrity of the editorial process and may negatively affect the scientific reputation of the journal. The journal strives to adhere to this principle in all situations to maintain a high level of trust in the scientific community.

9. Editorial Decision Appeal Policy

Authors who believe that there is merit in appealing an editorial decision to revise or reject their manuscript may submit a formal appeal. Appeal requests must be submitted in writing to the journal's email address with the subject line "Appeal" and the manuscript number in the subject line. Appeals will only be considered for peer-reviewed manuscripts and will not be considered for manuscripts rejected by the journal's editorial team without peer review. The appeal must be submitted by the corresponding author of the manuscript, and all authors must agree to submit the appeal.

The corresponding author must:

Submit the appeal within 1 month of receiving the editorial decision.
Not submit the manuscript to another journal or initiate the submission process to another journal while the appeal is pending.
State in the appeal letter the reasons why the author disagrees with the decision and provide responses to each of the editors' and/or reviewers' comments that may have influenced the decision to reject, with supporting evidence. Appeals will not be considered if manuscripts were rejected due to non-compliance with the journal's editorial policies or disagreement about the interest, novelty, or appropriateness of the manuscript for the journal.
Provide evidence if the author believes that the editor or reviewer made technical errors in evaluating the manuscript.
Provide evidence if the author believes that the editor or reviewer may have had a conflict of interest or exhibited bias.

Appeal requests that do not meet the above requirements will be rejected and will not be considered by the journal.

The time required to review an appeal may vary depending on the circumstances giving rise to the appeal.

The corresponding author may withdraw the appeal request by sending an email to the same address from which the appeal was submitted, with "Withdrawal of Appeal" and the manuscript number in the subject line.

The appeal request will be reviewed by the Journal's Editor-in-Chief or a designated representative (e.g., members of the Editorial Board), depending on the nature of the appeal. In the event of a conflict of interest declared by the Editor, the appeal will be reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the editorial and publishing cycle of the manuscript being appealed.

The appeal request will be evaluated in accordance with the policies and goals of the Journal. The Journal will notify the corresponding author of the outcome of the appeal.

The Journal's agreement to reconsider a decision on a submitted manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance, and the revision process may include re-review by previous or new reviewers and/or editors, as well as substantial revision of the manuscript. Only one appeal per manuscript will be considered, and the decision on the appeal is final. The Journal will not consider appeals if the issue is part of a legal dispute and reserves the right to suspend or terminate consideration of an appeal in such cases.

II. Peer review rules

Manuscripts submitted for publication go through a multi-stage review process. The process is based on the principles of transparency, objectivity, and adherence to scientific standards. Hereinbelow are the main steps of this procedure.

The received manuscript shall be registered and undergo initial evaluation based on a set of formal and qualitative criteria. These criteria include whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope, and whether it meets the content and formatting requirements. If the paper does not meet these requirements, it shall be rejected. The editor shall notify the author about the decision, usually within 10 days after receiving the manuscript.
Accepted manuscripts shall be assigned to a member of the editorial board who shall handle correspondence with the author. The member shall then forward the manuscript for peer review to experts recognized for their expertise in the paper's subject area who have themselves published relevant papers within the previous three years. In cases where there is controversy, the paper may be forwarded to more than two experts, including external reviewers and members of the editorial board.
The journal shall conduct a double-blind review of submitted manuscripts. The reviewer shall receive the manuscripts without the authors' names. The authors shall not be aware of the reviewer's identity. The review process usually takes four to six weeks.
Each review shall contain the following: assessment of the paper's scientific importance and its potential for publication.list of errors and comments, if any revisions suggested by the reviewer, if any.
After peer review, a paper shall be accepted for publication (5.1), returned for revision (5.2), or rejected (5.3). Wherever necessary, authors shall receive review copies.

5.1. If the reviewers give a positive review, then the editors shall add the manuscript to the portfolio for further editorial work (as described in Item 7).

5.2. Manuscripts revised by the author shall be sent back to the original reviewer to see if the changes address their comments. The reviewer shall also evaluate whether the author's decision not to make certain suggested changes is justified. If the author altogether refuses to revise the paper following the reviewer's comments, the paper shall be withdrawn and rejected.

5.3. If the reviewers give a negative review, then the editorial board's working group shall decide whether to reject the paper or seek an additional independent expert review. The author shall receive an email notification when their paper is rejected.

The author has the right to appeal a reviewer's decision to reject their manuscript. Appeals shall be sent to the editorial office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Appeals shall include detailed reasons for disagreeing with the reviewer's decision, arguments for reconsideration, and, if appropriate, a revised manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief shall mediate any irreconcilable disagreements between authors and reviewers regarding manuscript revisions. The Editor-in-Chief’s decisions shall be considered final.
The presence of two positive reviews does not guarantee the publication of the manuscript. The final decision on accepting the manuscript for publication rests with the journal's Editor-in-Chief.

The final decisions on paper publication dates shall be made and approved by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, following standard editorial procedures. Authors shall be informed of the final editorial decisions.
The editorial office shall keep reviews for 5 years. Editors shall send review copies to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request.
Reviews of manuscripts submitted to the journal since 2024 shall be published on the Scientific Electronic Library (eLibrary.Ru) platform.

III. AUTHORSHIP POLICY

The authorship shall be limited to the persons who have made a significant contribution to the research. They shall be listed as co-authors. All other involved parties shall be listed in the Acknowledgments section.

Each author must approve the submitted version of the manuscript (and any substantially modified versions to which the author contributed). Each author must acknowledge that he or she is solely responsible not only for his or her own contribution to the manuscript, but for its entire contents if the accuracy or integrity of any part of the manuscript, including those to which the author did not contribute, is in doubt.

The journal requires that all authors sign the manuscript submission letter and that the order of authors stated in the cover letter be followed. A manuscript submitted to the journal implies agreement by all listed authors with the contents of the manuscript, including the order and number of authors, and their contributions to the manuscript. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that this agreement is achieved and for communication with the journal before and after publication. The corresponding author is also responsible for filing a conflict-of-interest statement on behalf of all authors of the article.

The corresponding author is responsible for:

Maintaining standards of transparency and reproducibility of data.
Ensuring the preservation of original data/materials in accordance with best practices for their reanalysis.
Confirming that the submitted data/materials are accurate to the original.
Anticipating and minimizing barriers to the exchange of data/materials.
Validity of the author list and description of their contribution.

After acceptance of the manuscript, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of the content of the proofs, including co-authors' names, addresses, and affiliations. After publication, the corresponding author remains the primary contact for questions arising with the life cycle of the article and is obliged to promptly inform co-authors of any questions that arise.

Changes to the author list after manuscript submission, such as reordering, adding, or deleting authors, must be approved by all authors and accompanied by a protocol describing the author's contribution with the rationale for the change in authorship. The editors are not involved in the resolution of disputes about authorship.

Author Contribution Statement

The Historical Herald journal supports research transparency by publishing author contribution statements detailing each author's contribution (author contribution is described according to the author roles described in the CREDIT system).

Author Identification

To enhance the transparency of the publication process, authors must provide an ORCID identifier.

IV. Retraction polic

An article may be retracted at any stage of peer review or after publication if the journal’s ethical principles are found to be in breach. The purpose of retraction is to inform readers of materials containing seriously flawed or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Unreliability of data may be caused by both honest errors and deliberate violations (duplicate publications, plagiarism, concealment of a conflict of interest that may distort the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use). In addition, retraction serves to ensure scientific integrity by notifying other authors and readers that the results of the retracted article cannot be used in subsequent studies. An important goal of retraction is to maintain the integrity of scientific research by excluding data that may be misleading or inaccurate from scientific circulation. Thus, retraction helps to maintain a high level of scientific standards and trust in published research, ensuring that only reliable and reliable data remain in the scientific community.

Main grounds for retraction are as follows:

plagiarism.

third-party copyright infringement claims.

serious errors that undermine the published paper's scientific value.

author's request.

The retraction process shall involve an investigation, documentation, and publication of a notice in the next issue of the journal. Retracted papers shall be removed from reference databases.

V. Generative ai policy

Considering the development of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, which are increasingly being used by authors in the creation of scientific manuscripts, the journal "Istorichesky Vestnik" has developed a policy aimed at regulating their use. The journal will closely monitor developments in this area and adjust and clarify its policy as necessary.

Policy for Authors

Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the process of scientific writing

This policy applies exclusively to the process of writing and does not cover the use of AI for data analysis or obtaining scientific conclusions as part of the research process.

Purpose of AI Use

Authors may use generative AI and AI tools only to improve the readability and language of their manuscripts. The use of these technologies must be supervised by humans, and the results must be carefully checked and edited by the authors. It is important to note that AI may generate text that appears authoritative but contains incorrect, incomplete, or biased statements.

Responsibility and Disclosure [of Information]

Authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. The use of AI tools must be disclosed in the manuscript, and this disclosure will be included in the published article to ensure transparency and build trust among all participants in the publication process.

Exclusion of AI from co-authorship

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship implies responsibilities and performance of tasks that can only be assigned to a human. Authors have a responsibility to ensure that the work is original, meets ethical standards, and does not infringe the rights of third parties.

Use of AI in Illustrations and Graphic Design

No AI-powered Image Creation or Modification

Using generative AI or AI tools to create, modify, or process images in manuscripts is prohibited. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, and color balance are permitted if they do not distort the data presented.

Exception

If the use of AI is part of the research methodology (e.g., in biomedical imaging), it should be described in detail in the Methods section, including the name and characteristics of the AI-tool used.

Reviewer Policy

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents and uploading them or parts of them to AI tools is unacceptable, as this may violate the authors' privacy and intellectual property rights. This rule also applies to reviews, as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and authors. Using generative AI to assist in scientific peer review is unacceptable, as the peer review process requires critical thinking and independent assessment, which is beyond the capabilities of AI. The responsibility for the content of the review lies entirely with the reviewer.

The journal allows the use of secure AI technologies to check manuscripts for completeness, plagiarism, and find suitable reviewers, while maintaining confidentiality standards.

Editors Policy

All manuscripts submitted for review must remain confidential documents. Uploading them or any part of them to AI tools is not allowed, as this may violate the authors' rights and privacy. Accordingly, the use of generative AI to assist in editorial decisions is prohibited. Evaluation of manuscripts requires critical thinking and an objective approach that only editors can provide. Editors are ultimately responsible for the editorial process, the final decision on the manuscript, and its communication to the authors.

VI. Disclosure and conflict of interest policy

Unpublished data derived from manuscripts shall not be used for personal purposes. Reviewers shall avoid any conflicts of interest that might arise from their relationship with the authors, or any organizations associated with the manuscript.

The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a conflict-of-interest statement on behalf of all authors of the article. A conflict of interest is defined as a financial or non-financial interest that may directly undermine, or be perceived to undermine, the objectivity, integrity, or value of the publication by potentially influencing the authors' judgments and actions regarding the objective presentation of data, analysis, and interpretation.

Financial conflicts of interest:

(1) Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses) from organizations that may benefit or lose financially from this publication. Any role the funding organization played in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript must be disclosed.

(2) Employment: Recent (at the time of the study), current, or prospective employment with any organization that may benefit or lose financially from this publication.

(3) Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may benefit or lose financially from the publication; consulting fees or other remuneration (including payment for participation in symposia) from organizations that may benefit or lose financially; patents or patent applications (issued or pending) held by the authors or their institutions, the value of which may change as a result of publication. For patents and patent applications, the following information should be disclosed: applicant (author or institution), name of inventor(s), application number, application status, specific aspect of the manuscript covered by the patent application.

Non-financial conflicts of interest

Non-financial conflicts of interest can take many forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations and individuals. Authors and reviewers should declare any unpaid roles or relationships that might 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.

(3) Unpaid advisory role to a commercial organization.

(4) Consultancy for a company.

Authors

Authors must disclose and list any conflicts of interest during the manuscript submission process through the submission system. The corresponding author must provide a statement on behalf of all authors. In the case of double anonymous peer review, reviewers will receive a minimal statement during the peer review process indicating the presence of financial or non-financial interests in order to avoid disclosing the authors' identities.

Regardless of the peer review model, all authors must include a statement at the end of the published article stating whether they have any conflicts of interest, using one of the standard options:

"The authors declare that they have the following conflicts of interest: ..."
"The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest."
"The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that do not allow their conflicts of interest in this work to be disclosed."

Reviewers

The Journal "Istorichesky Vestnik" encourages reviewers to exclude themselves from the review process if there is a significant conflict of interest. Reviewers should inform editors of any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as significant. Editors will consider these statements when accepting recommendations from reviewers.

VII. Permission to use third-party materials

The journal's policy on obtaining permission to use third-party materials requires compliance with the following key provisions:

Mandatory permissions

Any reproduction of a significant part of a copyrighted work requires official permission from the copyright holder. This applies not only to texts, but also to all visual materials, such as: illustrations, diagrams, tables, photographs, any other materials that were previously published.

Procedure for obtaining permissions

To obtain permission to use material published by another publisher, you should:

Identify the copyright holder of the specific material you plan to use.
Contact the copyright holder (e.g. the publisher or the author) to obtain formal written permission. This can be done through specialized platforms that provide licensing rights or by making a personal request to the publisher.
Ensure that the permission covers the use of the material in the context of publication in a scientific article, specifying the form of use, such as publication in a scientific journal or online repository.

Obtaining permission

Once permission has been received from the copyright holder, it is important to:

Include written confirmation in the package of documents attached to the manuscript submitted to the journal.
Ensure that all necessary references and attributions in the text of the article or under illustrations and tables are correctly formatted in accordance with the requirements of the copyright holder.

Author's Responsibilities

The author is responsible for:

Providing evidence of permission to use any copyrighted material in their article.
Attributing the source and ensuring compliance with license terms, if applicable (e.g., for Creative Commons open licenses).

Exceptions to Permission

There are several situations where permission may not be required, such as:

Public domain: Materials that are not protected by copyright because they are in the public domain.
Open licenses: Materials published under Creative Commons licenses may be used if the terms of the license are followed, such as attribution, but with restrictions on commercial use or modification.

Adherence to this policy is important to ensure the legality of the published work and to protect the rights of all contributors. Authors should exercise caution when using third-party materials to avoid possible copyright infringement, as this may result in the refusal to publish or retraction of the article if infringement is discovered.

Access to data

The editorial board of the journal "Istorichesky Vestnik" is committed to maintaining the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research. This policy applies to data that is not included directly in the text of the manuscript but may be required by reviewers and other researchers to verify the reliability and transparency of the conclusions presented in the article.

Authors' responsibilities

Authors should be prepared to provide any additional data confirming the results of the study, if requested by the editors or reviewers during the review process. Such data may include:

Initial data (e.g. observational or experimental data).
Data processing methods, scripts, and algorithms.
Experimental materials and protocols that facilitate reproducing the results.
Any intermediate stages of analysis that allow the reliability of the final results to be verified.

Data formats and access

Data provided by authors upon request should be available in formats convenient for reuse (e.g. CSV, Excel, or text formats for data, and PDF or protocols for methods and descriptions). Data can be:

Transferred to reviewers directly through the journal platform, while maintaining confidentiality
Stored in publicly accessible data repositories, e.g. Zenodo, Mendeley Data, with the ability to temporarily restrict access until the article is published.

Role of reviewers

Reviewers have the right to request additional data from authors to more thoroughly check the conclusions presented in the article. These requests must be justified and relate only to those data that directly affect the verification of the reliability of the study.

Data confidentiality

If data is provided to reviewers at the peer review stage, the editorial board undertakes to maintain confidentiality. Additional data will be available exclusively to reviewers and the editorial team and will not be published without the permission of the authors.

Data Publication

After the peer review process is completed and the article is accepted for publication, authors are encouraged to publish additional data in publicly accessible repositories to maintain transparency and promote further use of data in scientific research. All links to repositories and data in the article must be indicated.

Refusal to Provide Data

If authors refuse to provide additional data upon reasonable request of reviewers, the editors reserve the right to suspend the review process or refuse publication, considering the importance of the data for verifying scientific conclusions.

Control and responsibility

The editors reserve the right to request and verify the availability of data from authors in case of justified complaints about the lack of transparency of results after publication. In cases of violation of the principles of openness and transparency, the editors may initiate a process of investigation and revision of the publication.

The editors of the journal highly value the contribution of authors to the openness of science and support efforts aimed at ensuring the reuse of data. This policy is designed to ensure compliance with high standards of scientific ethics, promoting transparency and reproducibility of research.

VIII. Open access principles

The Historical Reporter is an open access journal. All content is available under a Creative Commons International Public License (CC BY-NC).

The journal adheres to the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which means that all papers are made freely available online. This means that anyone can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search for, refer to, index, transmit as data for software, or use the full text of published papers for any other legal purpose. There are no financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those associated with accessing the Internet itself.

All published papers are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

IX. Financial policy

The Historical Reporter is funded by the Runivers Autonomous Non-Profit Organization (the journal’s founder and publisher).

X. Advertising policy

The journal does not publish promotional materials. The publisher shall make all the decisions related to advertising. The editorial board reserves the right to reject promotional materials from the publisher that do not comply with the publication's policies.

XI. Preprint policy

The journal accepts papers that were previously published on personal or public websites unaffiliated with other publishers.