Studies in East European Thought - Guidelines for Special Issues and Thematic Symposia
Guidelines for Special Issues and Thematic Symposia
The governing objectives of the Journal Studies in East European Thought (SEET) for submission with respect to a Special Issue or Symposium (a thematic cluster of papers) are (a) scholarly excellence, (b) relevance to the aims and scope of SEET, and (c) novelty and significance of topic.
Proposals concerning any topic of the journal will be welcome for consideration by the Editor-in-Chief. In order to arrive at a decision with respect to a proposal for a Special Issue or Symposium, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board at the journal, will review the submitted proposal and may recommend (a) acceptance, (b) revisions, or (c) rejection of the proposal.
Proposals should be submitted to the attention of:
Editor in Chief
Marina F. Bykova
Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
North Carolina State University, NC, USA
mfbykova@ncsu.edu (this opens in a new tab)
Formats available
There are two formats available for collected papers at SEET, each of which serves different purposes:
1. Special Issues generally comprise approximately 7 to 8 papers. The journal sets no upper limit on the length of individual papers but the length of a paper must be justified by its contents. Previously published papers were between7,000 and10,000 words.
2. Thematic Symposia (thematic clusters of papers) generally comprise 3 to 4 original papers and are published as a separate section within a regular issue of the journal.
For both Special Issues and Symposia reviewing processes must take place in accordance with the principles of transparency and objectivity, which is achieved through adherence to the established practice of blind peer reviews.
As a rule, SEET does not publish the proceedings of professional conferences. Papers presented at conferences may be included in the Special Issues of Symposiums only after they have been revised to include new material and the exposition of the topic has improved.
Guidelines for submitting a Proposal
The proposal should be submitted as a word document and should clearly indicate whether it is a proposal for a Special Issue or a Symposium.
1. The name and contact details of the Guest Editors(s)
2. The title of the Special Issue or Symposium
3. A summary of the proposed topic
4. Justification for why the Special Issue or Symposium is needed
5. Explanation of the suitability of the topic for the journal
6. A list of the proposed contributors along with short bios for each of them.
7. A list of the suggested papers along with their titles and abstracts
8. A proposed schedule for each stage of the process including timelines and deadlines for receiving, reviewing and revising manuscripts into final publishable form. It is expected that The whole process takes no longer than 8-9 months.
9. A short (one page) CV for each of the proposed Guest Editors with a list of their relevant publications and examples of their editorial experience.
10. A list of proposed reviewers (including email addresses or affiliations) for the Special Issue or Symposium. This list needs to be approved by the Editors-in-Chief before invitations for review are sent.
11. The proposed work may be started only after the Editor-in-Chief approves the proposal.
Special Issues and Symposia on-line submission and reviewing process
Once the Special Issue or Symposium is agreed upon, the Guest Editors(s) will be in charge of inviting and selecting papers for the Special Issue. Papers must adhere to the Editorial style of SEET which can be found at Studies in East European Thought (this opens in a new tab)
All papers must be submitted through the journals on-line submission system (Editorial Manager) which can be found at: Editorial Manager (this opens in a new tab)®
Guest Editors and invited authors should follow Springer Nature’s and journal’s Editorial Policies carefully before they submit their paper. This information can be found here: Editorial Policies (this opens in a new tab)
Reviewers should follow Springer Nature’s and the journals more detailed Peer-Review Policy, Process and Guidance (this opens in a new tab)
The following process should be adhered to:
1. The Guest Editor (s) is required to run the submission and review process through the Editorial Manager system adopted by the journal. Editorial Manager needs to be set up to allow Editors, reviewers and authors access to individual Special Issues and Symposia. The Guest Editor(s) need to liaise with the Editor-in-Chief, who will put the Guest Editor(s) in touch with the relevant parties at Springer to make the necessary arrangements. This includes the allocation of a unique identifier which will be added to the list of available article types in Editorial Manager to distinguish the Special Issue or Symposium from other Special Issues and regular articles. The allocated name for the special issue needs to be clearly identified in the proposal.
2. All submissions to the Special Issue or Symposium must be reviewed on the basis of a blind peer-review process conducted via Editorial Manager. The Guest Editor(s), in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, needs to have selected 2-3 reviewers for each paper beforehand and provide this information to the Editorial Manager Assistant.
3. The Guest Editor(s) is invited to submit an introductory essay that provides a substantive and critical overview of the topic, and is of publication standard in its own right. This essay will be submitted through the Editorial Manager system to the Editor-in-Chief for peer review.
4. Peer review of papers authored by the Guest Editor(s) will be handled by the Editor-in-Chief. Like all other papers, these manuscripts must be also submitted through the Editorial Manager system.
5. The Guest Editor(s) is responsible for selecting papers for the Special Issue or for the Symposium in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief. Any remaining submissions will be treated as rejected.
6. If, in the view of the Guest Editor(s) a paper is not selected for a Special Issue or Symposium, but is of a suitably high standard to warrant being assessed as a regular paper by the journal, it should be transferred to the Editor-in-Chief.
7. The Guest Editor(s) must assess all submitted manuscripts and invite reviewers within 7-10 days of submission.
8. The Guest Editor(s), in consultation with Editor-in-Chief, assigns papers to reviewers they have appointed earlier in Editorial Manager.
9. Review reports are assigned to the Guest Editor(s), who handles the review process and makes recommendation about revisions and rejections.
10. Revised papers are assigned/returned to the Guest Editors(s), who re-assigns papers for further review or makes a final recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
11. During the review process, the Editor-in-Chief, may request additional reviews for particular papers, further revisions, and has the right in consultation with the Guest Editor(s), to reject papers if they do not fulfill standards of scholarly excellence.
12. The Guest Editor(s) has access to all papers and the related files throughout the review and selection process.
13. Final acceptance decisions in Editorial Manager will be made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Guest Editor(s).
14. The Guest Editor(s) must inform the Editor-in-Chief who are going to read and correct page proofs for each article, i.e., authors, the Guest Editors(s) or both.
15. Final approval and the go ahead are given by the Editor-in-Chief, for the collection to go to press.
16. The Editor-in-Chief can decide to cancel a Special Issue or Symposium if the Guest Editor(s) fails to deliver the Special Issue or Symposium by the submission deadline (as indicated in the Rules above) or fails to negotiate an extension of the submission deadline with the Editor-in-Chief.
Contributing authors to Special Issue or Symposia articles may post an earlier draft of their paper on an institutional repository, provided that repository is either the author's institutional repository or that of the society or institution hosting the conference. However, upon publication of the Special paper online, the author and/or hosting institution or society is required to reduce the posting to an abstract only and then link to the online version on SpringerLink.
Appendix - Publisher’s Code of Conduct
In this Appendix the term “Journal” shall mean the journal for which the Editor-in-Chief is editorially responsible.
COPE
1. The Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to follow the COPE guideline entitled Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
2. The Publisher has responsibility to ensure that journals published by the Publisher adhere to editorial and publication ethics standards recommended by COPE, and the Publisher will support Editor(s)-in-Chief in their pursuit of adhering to such COPE standards. When dealing with publication and research ethics issues, Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to follow COPE guidance and flowcharts or any guidance provided by the Publisher. The final course of action should be decided by the Editor(s)-in-Chief. In difficult cases, or where there is no existing COPE guidance, the Editor(s)-in-Chief may seek advice from the Publisher, and some cases may need to be resolved in collaboration between Editor(s)-in-Chief and the Publisher. The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and general guidelines and flowcharts are available from the COPE website (http://publicationethics.org (this opens in a new tab)).
3. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to be aware of the editorial policies and information provided for authors by the Journal.
4. If there is more than one Editor-in-Chief for the Journal, it is understood that the responsibility concerning Editorship of the Journal is shared between them.
Peer review
5. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to comply with the Journal’s peer review policy (e.g. open, single- blind, double-blind).
6. Peer review is an essential component of the research publication. It aims to assess the validity of the reported research and suitability for journals’ scope and aims. In order to maintain the integrity of the published record the Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to ensure that all manuscripts reporting primary research, or secondary analysis of primary research, accepted for publication in the Journal are peer reviewed by reviewers who are competent in a relevant field and/or have expertise in a relevant methodology, as judged by their publication record, and are free of potential bias. Such bias includes, but is not limited to, any recent collaboration between the peer reviewers and the authors of the manuscript. The requirement for Editor(s)-in-Chief to ensure absence of conflicts of interest amongst peer reviewers expressly applies to peer reviewers suggested by the authors of the manuscript.
7. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s)-in-Chief may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out in section 8 below.
8. Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a scientific rationale for the recommendations.
9. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
10. Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without two peer review reports. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s)-in-Chief if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s)-in-Chief; if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s)-in-Chief, such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.
Manuscript handling
11. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to provide a professional service to authors. Correspondence should be handled in a timely and professional manner. Arrangements should be in place to ensure editorial staff absences do not result in a reduced service to authors.
12. Editor(s)-in-Chief are expected to make full use of the online submission and peer-review system provided by the Publisher and, where necessary, maintain offline tracking systems, in order to preserve a full record of the peer review of each manuscript, where offline tracking is used, Editor(s)-in-Chief should upload offline records to the online submission and peer-review system as soon as possible.
Confidentiality
13. Editor(s)-in-Chief is expected to respect and uphold the confidential status of materials submitted to the Journal and should ensure that material remains confidential while under review.