Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

„Belarusian Studies” is a peer-reviewed yearbook, dedicated to Belarus and Polish-Belarusian cultural, literary and language connections throughout the history. It deals with the issues in the field of humanities and social sciences: literary studies, linguistics, history, sociology and cultural sciences. . The Yearbook is a multidisciplinary platform for the exchange of ideas and the integration of researchers from Polish and abroad interested in the humanities in various aspects. “Belarusian Studies” is yearbook open to both experienced scientists and young authors who are at the beginning of their academic career. The journal is thus an excellent platform for an intergenerational dialogue and the presentation of different points of view on the topics discussed in each volume. By inviting authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board from internationally renowned academic centres abroad conducting research in the Belarusian studies, we are also concerned with the internationalisation of the results of research conducted in Poland.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Biograms

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Recipe articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Review process – description of stages

1. The submitted article is subject to preliminary review by members of the editorial board. During the initial review, the compliance of the text with the profile of the journal, the subject of the issue and the editorial rules adopted by the journal are checked (read more). If the text has not been prepared in accordance with the editorial rules set out in the instructions for authors, the editors ask the Author to make corrections and additions.

2. The article is verified in the anti-plagiarism program before being forwarded to reviewers.

3. Texts that comply with the editorial rules are forwarded to two independent reviewers. Reviewers are assigned by the editor-in-chief of the journal in consultation with the members of the editorial board.

4. At least two independent reviewers (including one foreign reviewer) from outside the institution affiliated by the Author and the Publisher shall be appointed to evaluate each publication.

5. In the case of texts written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers has to be affiliated with a foreign institution other than the institution affiliated by the author of the work.

6. The review process is based on a model of mutual anonymity, in which the author and reviewers do not know their identities (the so-called double-blind review process ).

7. Otherwise, the reviewer declares that there is no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is considered to be a) direct personal relations between the reviewer and the author (kinship to the second degree, legal relationships, conflict); b) relations of professional subordination between the reviewer and the author; (c) direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review between the reviewer and the author.

8. The review must be in writing and end with an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article should be allowed for publication or rejected.

9. The reviewer prepares the review in electronic form via his individual account on the journal's website https://journals.umcs.pl/sb and publishes it on the journal's platform. The journal's system ensures mutual anonymity - it does not allow to identify both the author of the manuscript and the reviewer.

10. Through the journal's platform, the reviewer receives individual access to the file with the text of the article and possible additional files.

11. The reviewer may choose the following recommendations regarding the reviewed text: acceptance of the submitted text; requirement of amendments; request to resubmit; rejection of the submitted text.

12. After receiving both reviews, the editors make further decisions:

  • If both reviews are positive – the editors forward them to the author and ask for a response to the comments and possible corrections. After resending the corrected version of the text, the editors evaluate it and qualify it for printing, in justified cases they may ask reviewers to re-evaluate the text;
  • If one of the reviews is positive and the other negative – the editorial board appoints an additional reviewer and after receiving the third review decides whether or not to accept the text for publication and forwards the reviews to the author;
  • If both reviews are negative – the editors pass them on to the author and inform about the rejection of the text.

13. In inconclusive situations or if the reviews are inconsistent, admission to publication is decided by the editorial board, which may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.

14. The author of the text is obliged to respond thoroughly to the comments and remarks voiced in the review.

15. The names of reviewers of individual issues are not disclosed; once a year, the journal publishes a list of cooperating reviewers on its website.

16. The review process takes about 2-4 months (excluding holiday periods).

 

Basic criteria for rejecting a scientific article in "Belarusian Studies":

  1. lack of compliance with the profile of the journal (papers in the field of humanities: philological, cultural studies, linguistics, art history) or the thematic scope of the issue – the decision is made after the initial assessment of the editorial board or detailed assessment of the reviewer (see guidelines for reviewers);
  2. exceeding the recommended size of the text (30,000 characters including summaries and bibliography – see editorial rules) – the decision is made after the initial assessment of the editorial board;
  3. failure to adapt the text to editorial guidelines (see more broadly – editorial guidelines) – the decision is made after the initial assessment of the editorial board or the detailed assessment of the reviewer (see guidelines for reviewers);
  4. negative reviews: obtaining two negative reviews results in automatic rejection of the text; in the case of a single negative review, the subsequent negative review leads to the rejection of the article; in special cases, the decision to disqualify the text is made by the editors.


GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

General guidelines

1. The reviewer agrees to prepare a review if he considers that the topic and issues of the article are consistent with his competences and research interests, which will allow to prepare a reliable and substantive assessment of the submitted article.

2. The reviewer, agreeing to prepare a review, accepts the deadlines of review in the journal – 2 months. If the reviewer finds that it is not possible to complete the review in a timely manner, he should notify the editor.

3. A reviewer should not undertake a review of articles if he suspects that there may be a conflict of interest resulting from competitiveness, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relations with any of the authors or institutions related to the submitted text.

 

Detailed guidelines – criteria for the evaluation of reviewed texts (scientific articles, review articles, conference reports)

1. The reviewer should evaluate the submitted text, taking into account: the compliance of the reviewed text with the profile of the journal; the substantive side of the text; the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovativeness; the number and correctness of the selection of sources and literature, in particular bibliographic items on the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases; the compliance of the abstract, keywords and bibliography with the requirements of the journal; consistency and transparency of the text; linguistic and stylistic level.

2. The reviewer evaluates the compatibility of the reviewed text with the profile of the journal "Belarusian Studies", which publishes works in the field of humanities: philological, linguistics, history, sociology and cultural studies) or with the thematic scope of a given issue;

3. The reviewer shall state whether the reviewed article is an original scientific work.

4. The review shall indicate in particular:

  • whether the title is consistent with the problematic content of the article;
  • whether the author has described, correctly selected and applied research methods; whether the illustrations, charts or tables provided are legible;
  • whether the research process has been correctly carried out by the author and whether the results obtained are elements of new knowledge; whether he presents arguments and formulates answers to the questions asked, discusses the results obtained by other researchers, determines the importance of the research carried out in the field of linguistics, literary studies or cultural studies.

5. The reviewer of a review article should determine whether the evaluated text discusses a publication important for the field of humanities and whether the author referred to the methodological correctness and substantive side of the reviewed item.

6. The reviewer of the conference report states whether the text defines the subject and purpose of the conference, presents content of the papers presented and indicates the importance of the conference for the humanities.

7. The reviewer determines whether the abstract of the reviewed article meets the requirements indicated in the guidelines for authors:

  • whether the abstract of the article is consistent with the subject and content of the article and presents the topic of research, main theses, the purpose of the research, the originality of the research approaches, the value for a given scientific discipline,
  • whether the abstract of the review article determines: the subject and meaning of the reviewed item in the perspective of the relevant scientific discipline, contains the assessment of the logical and methodological correctness of the reviewed item as well as conclusions of the reviewer;
  • whether the abstract of the conference report specifies: the topic, date and place of the conference, the subject and purpose of the conference, the significance of the conference for a given scientific discipline.

8. The reviewer evaluates whether the keywords were selected correctly.

9. The reviewer evaluates the linguistic and stylistic level, consistency and clarity of the text.

10. The reviewer shall state the compliance of the text with the principles of formatting the text, footnotes and bibliography specified in the guidelines for authors.

 

Publication Frequency

Yearbook. Sending materials - till the end of June. Printing - until the end of the year.

 

Open Access Policy

The journal is available, based on the principles of open access. This means that there is open, free-of-charge and fast access to the electronic version of each scientific publication featured in the journal. Every user is entitled to read, copy, disseminate and quote content of articles, conference and research reports as well as book reviews published in open access. The user has access to all materials without financial, legal or technical restrictions, whilst respecting copyright issues.

ccby

 

Rewievers

2014

Hryhorij Arkuszyn; Aleksander Barszczewski; Nina Barszczewska; Mikołaj Chaustowicz; Lilia Citko; Jan Czykwin; Leonarda Dacewicz; Andrzej Gil; Roman Jurkowski; Bronisław Kodzis; Witold Kołbuk; Czesław Łapicz; Hubert Łaszkiewicz; Eugeniusz Mironowicz; Maria Mocarz-Kleindienst; Włodzimierz Pawluczuk; Walenty Piłat; Andrzej Sadowski; Iwan Sawierczanka; Beata Siwek; Elżbieta Smułkowa; Wojciech Śleszyński; Bazyli Tichoniuk; Mikołaj Timoszuk; Ihar Żuk; Czesław Lachur; Iryna Budźko; Iwona Rzepnikowska

2015

Iryna Budźko; Mikołaj Chaustowicz; Leonarda Dacewicz; Helena Głogowska; Roman Jurkowski; Witold Kołbuk; Wiktoria Laszuk; Czesław Lachur; Hubert Łaszkiewicz; Dorota Michaluk; Maria Mocarz-Kleindiest; Jerzy Nikotorowicz; Iwona Rzepnikowska; Ludmiła Sińkowa; Beata Siwek; Mikołaj Timoszuk; Halina Twaranowicz; Ihar Żuk

2016

Zofia Abramowicz (Poland); Wiktar Adzinoczanka (Belarus); Piotr Cichoracki (Poland); Lilia Citko (Poland); Iryna Haponienka (Belarus); Roman Jurkowski (Poland); Antonina Kozyrska (Poland); Hubert Łaszkiewicz (Poland); Aleś Makarewicz (Belarus); Dorota Michaluk (Poland); Eugeniusz Mironowicz (Poland); Maria Mocarz-Kleindienst (Poland); Żanna Niekraszewicz-Karotkaja (Belarus); Ludmiła Sińkowa (Belarus); Damian Szymczak (Poland); Lubow Żwanko (Ukraine); Bazyli Tichoniuk (Poland); Mikołaj Timoszuk (Poland); Ihar Żuk (Belarus)

2017

Iryna Haponienka (Belarus); Maryna Swistunowa (Belarus); Wiktoria Laszuk (Slovakia); Beata Siwek (Poland); Beata Walęciuk-Dejneka (Poland); Damian Szymczak (Poland); Jacek Kulbaka (Poland); Jorn Happel (Switzerland); Piotr Cichoracki (Poland); Aleś Makarewicz (Belarus); Dorota Michaluk (Poland); Halina Twaranowicz (Poland); Jaroslav Vaculik (Czech Republic); Lubow Żwanko (Ukraine); Ludmiła Sinkawa (Belarus); Maria Mocarz-Kleindiest (Poland); Roman Jurkowski (Poland); Ryszard Radzik (Poland); Zofia Abramowicz (Poland)

2018

Iryna Budźko (Belarus); Piotr Cichoracki (Poland); Lilia Citko (Poland); Larysa Giedimin (Belarus); Roman Jurkowski (Poland); Antonina Kozyrska (Poland); Aleś Makarewicz (Belarus); Dorota Michaluk (Poland); Maria Mocarz-Kleindiest (Poland); Żanna Niekraszewicz-Karotkaja (Belarus); Jerzy Nikitorowicz (Poland); Ryszard Radzik (Poland); Dorota Rembiszewska (Poland); Alena Rudenka (Belarus); Ludmiła Sińkowa (Belarus); Maryna Swistunowa (Belarus); Siarhiej Zaprudski (Belarus)

2019

Iryna Budzko (Belarusian National Technical University, Minsk, Belarus); Piotr Cichoracki (University of Wroclaw, Poland) Lilia Citko (University of Bialystok, Poland); Vasyl Futala (Drohobych State Pedagogical University, Ukraine); Joanna Getka (University of Warsaw, Poland); Roman Jurkowski (University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland); Jacek Kulbaka (The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Warszawa, Poland); Hubert Łaszkiewicz (University of Warsaw, Poland); Maria Mocarz-Kleindienst (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland); Zhanna Nekrashevich-Karotkaja (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus); Natalia Korina (University of Vienna, Austria); Andrei Macuk (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus); Aliaksandr Makarevich (Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University, Belarus); Natalia Paliaszczuk (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus); Dorota Krystyna Rembiszewska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland); Iryna Ramanava (European Humanities University, Lithuania); Dzmitry Shavialiou (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus); Ludmila Sinkova (Belarusian State University, Minsk. Belarus); Beata Siwek (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland); Natalia Snigiriova (National Academy of Sciences of Science, Minsk, Belarus); Halina Twaranowicz (University of Bialystok, Poland); Jaroslav Vaculik (Masaryk University, Czech Republic); Tatsiana Valodzina (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus); Jerzy Waszkiewicz (Minsk, Belarus); Andrzej Zakrzewski (University of Warsaw)

2020

Viktoryja Boretskaja (Pavel Sukhoi State Technical University of Gomel, Belarus);Iryna Budzko (Belarusian National Technical University, Minsk, Belarus), Mikałaj Chaustowicz (University of Warsaw, Poland); Aleh Dziarnovich (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus); Lilia Citko (University of Bialystok, Poland); Roman Jurkowski (University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland); Radoslaw Kaleta (University of Warsaw, Poland); Anzela Mielnikava (Francisk Skorina Gomel State University, Belarus); Zhanna Nekrashevich-Karotkaja (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus); Irena Matus (University of Bialystok, Poland); Małgorzata Misiak (University of Wroclaw, Poland); Zhanna Nekrashevich-Karotkaja (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus); Vladimir Putik (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus), Dorota Rembiszewska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland); Iryna Ramanava (European Humanities University, Lithuania); Oleh Razyhrayev (Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University, Lutsk, Ukraine); Ludmila Sinkova (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus), Maryna Svistunova (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus); Natalia Snigiriova (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus); Halina Tvaranovich (University of Bialystok, Poland); Tatsiana Valodzina (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus)

2021

Iryna Budzko (Belarusian National Technical University, Minsk, Belarus), Piotr Cichoracki (University of Wrocław, Poland), Lilia Citko (University of Bialystok, Poland), Marcin Dębicki (University of Wrocław, Poland), Ewa Golachowska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland), Olga Nestel (Australia), Mirosław Jankowiak (The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic), Eriks Jekabsons (University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia), Aliaksei Lastouski (Polotsk State University, Belarus), Aliaksandr Makarevich (Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University, Belarus), Marzena Marczewska (Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce, Poland), Dorota Michaluk (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland), Maria Mocarz-Kleindienst (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland); Natalia Paliashchuk (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus), Aliaksandr Pashkevich (Belarus), Tacciana Ramza (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus), Dorota Rembiszewska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland), Svitlana Romaniuk (University of Warsaw, Poland), Ludmila Sinkova (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus), Ivana Slivkova (University of Presow, Slovakia), Natalia Snigiriova (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus), Nadzieja Staravojtava (Belarusian State Economic University, Minsk, Belarus), Halina Tvaranovich (University of Bialystok, Poland), Tatsiana Valodzina (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus), Sviatlana Viarhijenka (Francisk Skorina Gomel State University, Belarus), Włodzimierz Wysoczański (University of Wrocław, Poland), Anna Żebrowska (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland)

2022

Nina Barszczewska (University of Warsaw, Poland), Hermann Bieder (Austria), Elżbieta Bogdanowicz (University of Bialystok, Poland), Juliia Buyskykh (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraina), Piotr Cichoracki (University of Wrocław, Poland), Joanna Getka (University of Warsaw, Poland), Jorn Happel (Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg, Germany), Mirosław Jankowiak (The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic), Vital Evmenkov (Belarus), Natalia Korina (University of Vienna, Austria), Iryna Kowal-Fuczyło (The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraina), Uladimir Lobach (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland), Dorota Michaluk (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland), Oleh Razyhrayev (Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University, Lutsk, Ukraina), Dorota Rembiszewska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland), Beata Siwek (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Damian Szymczak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland), Dorota Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak (University of Warsaw, Poland).

2023

Nikolai Antropov (Kazakhstan), Nina Barszczewska (University of Warsaw, Poland), Lilia Citko (University of Bialystok, Poland), Piotr Cichoracki (University of Wrocław, Poland), Joanna Getka (University of Warsaw, Poland), Julia Gurskaja  (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland), Aleksej Judin (Ghent University, Belgium), Roman Jurkowski (University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn), Inna Kalita (Czech Republic), Natalia Korina (University of Vienna, Austria), Stanisław Koziara (University of the National Education Commission, Krakow, Poland), Alena Lepishava (Belarus), Alaksandr Lukashaniec (Belarus), Dangiras Mačiulis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Vilnius, Lithuania), Olga Mastianica (Lithuanian Institute of History, Vilnius, Lithuania), Michał Mordań (University of Bialystok, Poland), Ryszard Radzik (The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Warsaw, Poland), Oleh Razyhrayev (Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University, Lutsk, Ukraina), Inna Shved (Anhui University, China), Aliaksandr Smalianchuk (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland), Nadzieya Shakun (Belarus), Halina Twaranowicz (University of Bialystok, Poland), Katarzyna Waszczyńska (University of Warsaw, Poland).

 

Indexing

Slavic Humanities, Arianta, Index Copernicus, Erih Plus, BazHum, CEJSH, DOAJ

 

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

One of the priorities of the editorial team of Belarusian Studies is to publish quality papers. The integrity of the content published is an essential point and should be ensured during the review and the edition processes and when publishing papers. To that purpose, all the actors of Belarusian Studies publication, authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team, are expected to fully adhere to our policy regarding publication ethics and malpractice. The following ethical standards adopted by Belarusian Studies are based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines and Publishing Ethics policies advocated by Elsevier.

Duties of editors

1. Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.

2. Editors have in-house procedures to assure the quality of the material to be published, including plagiarism control for new articles.

3. Editors put freedom of expression as the primary value of each contribution.

4. Editors make sure business needs do not compromise intellectual and ethical standards.

5. Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

6. Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

7. Editors encourage suggestions of authors, readers, international advisory board members, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes.

8. Editors are aware of research into peer review and publishing and continually reassess their journal’s processes in the light of new findings.

9. Editors strive to ensure appropriate technical resources or guidance from experts (technical designers, statistical experts) needed to maintain high quality of the journal.

10. Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

11. Editors support initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct.

12. Editors attempt to ensure that any publication appearing in the journal reflects the message of the reported article and is put in its original context

Rights and duties of reviewers

1. Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

2. Editors provide regularly updated guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

3. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4. The journal has a system to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.

5. The identity of reviewers of individual articles is not revealed, a list of reviewers is published once a year for all the articles published in this year.

6. Editors strive to ensure peer review at the journal is s fair, unbiased and timely.

7. Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.

8. Editors have a system to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

9. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions as well as on the originality of submissions, possibility of redundant publication or plagiarism.

10. Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.

11. Editors develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers and update this on the basis of reviewer performance to make sure it reflects the community for the journal. A wide range of sources beyond personal contacts are used to identify potential new reviewers.

Rights and duties of authors

1. Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

2. Editors publish submission guidelines detailing what is expected of authors. These guidelines are regularly updated and should refer to this code.

3. A description of peer review process is published in the code of conduct below:

  • Each publication is reviewed by at least two external reviewers.
  • The submissions are subject to the double blind review process.
  • The review is made in a written form with a clear conclusion on acceptance or rejection of the submission.
  • Belarusian Studies has a mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. The author who wishes to appeal against the reviewing outcome needs to make a clearly justified statement and direct it to the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Siergiej Kowalow (siergiej.kowalow@umcs.pl).

4. Editor-in-Chief respects requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable.

 Relations with readers

1. Readers are informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

2. All publications are reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers, the identity of reviewers of individual articles is not revealed, a list of reviewers is published once a year. Reviewers are competent to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests.

3. There are no non-peer-reviewed sections in Belarusian Studies.

4. Editors strive to develop a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles.

5. The journal adopts authorship system that promotes good practice and discourages misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors).

6. The journal informs readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

Relations with editorial board members

1. Editors provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

2. Submissions from editorial board members are anonymised and subject to the standard reviewing procedure to ensure unbiased review. The editorial position is not a factor deciding about the acceptance of the article.

3. Editor-in-Chief continually strives to identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal.

4. Editor-in-Chief regularly reviews the composition of the editorial board and provides guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties.

5. The following editorial responsibilities are shared among the members of the editorial board:

  • supporting and promoting the journal;
  • seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions;
  • reviewing submissions to the journal;

Relations with journal owners and publishers

1. The relationship of editors to Journal publishers is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.

2. Editors make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without any interference from the journal owner.

Quality assurance

1. Editors take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish.

Protecting individual data

1. Editors obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction.

2. Editors protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions.

Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

1. Editors endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines on ethics (e.g. American Educational Research Association ethical standards: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=90&id=222, British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/, American Psychological Association ethical principles: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx).

2. Editors seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

3. Editors request authors' clarification on ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to ensure child student protection) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed.

Dealing with possible misconduct

1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them, both in case of published and unpublished papers.

2. Editors do not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct, instead, they are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

3. Editors first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.

4. Editors make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted.

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are corrected immediately at the request of anyone interested in the article (author, reviewer, reader, publisher).

2. Authors of published papers are free to republish the articles elsewhere provided clear reference and link to the original publication is given.

Intellectual property

1. Editors are alert to intellectual property issues and strive to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

2. Editors support authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism.

Encouraging debate

1. Editors encourage and are willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.

2. Authors of criticised material are given the opportunity to respond. They are asked to produce their response within the period of two weeks. If they decide to do so, both the criticism and the response are published in the same issue, in that order.

3. Studies reporting negative results are not excluded.

Commercial considerations

1. Belarusian Studies has a clear policy on ensuring that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions. There is no advertising in individual articles.

2. Belarusian Studies does not accept sponsored articles for publication. Articles may be submitted by representatives of companies, however, they are subject to the same reviewing procedure and standards as other submissions.

 

Tasks of the Scientific Board

The members of the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board of the journal establish the main topic of each volume. They also prepare calls for papers and publish them on the website of the journal. CFPs may also be sent to individual researchers in Poland and abroad. The members of the Editorial Board identify papers that should be desk rejected, and select reviewers for accepted papers. When necessary, the members of the Board consult the experts from the Advisory Board. Proofreaders correspond with authors and international reviewers, and ensure the high standard of papers published in the journal.