Ethical norms

The ethical standarts of the electronic journal Educational and Social Studies are based on the norms of the Committee on Publication Ethics Publication Ethics COPE¹ and are in accordance with the norms of the Code of Ethics of the Academic Community of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"² .

The ethical standarts apply to all participants in the publishing process: editorial board, editor-in-chief, managing editors, authors, reviewers, and they guarantee the high quality of the published texts and their compliance with the academic standards.

Copyright of articles published in Educational and Social Studies remain with the authors, but the rights of first publication are granted to the journal. As authors retain the publication rights, they may upload their articles to institutional websites, academic social networks, etc. by crediting the journal.

Duties of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board decides whether to accept or reject the publication a proposed paper based on its compliance with the principles of academic morality as well as the journal's editorial policy and publication criteria. It may return the material to the author for corrections or revisions, or may decline publication altogether. Decisions to publish or reject texts are based on reviewers' evaluations; on compliance with the journal's publishing policy; and on compliance with legal requirements regarding copyright and plagiarism. Members of the editorial board are obliged not to disclose information regarding submitted manuscripts, respecting the terms of the accepted review procedure.

The Editorial board members must not use unpublished material and research theses contained in submitted manuscripts for their own research purposes without the explicit consent of the authors. Editorial board members should not participate in the discussion of manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with the authors or institutions associated with the manuscript.

The Editorial Board of Educational and Social Studies is obliged to take appropriate measures in case of complaints, claims, disagreements regarding a submitted manuscript or publication. These include contacting the authors of the manuscript or published article and responding to the complaint in question. Consultation with relevant institutions and research teams may take place if necessary. The editorial board takes a position by rejecting or agreeing with the complaint received, publishing a note of correction of the relevant text, etc. Any act of unethical behaviour found in relation to publication activity must be treated with due care and seriousness, even if it is discovered long after the publication has been published.

In order to ensure compliance with academic ethics in its dealings with authors, the Editorial Board of Educational and Social Research considers any complaint submitted by an author in search of a prompt, fair and efficient resolution.

Duties of the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief verifies that the proposed material is consistent with the journal's profile and publishing policy. The next step requires checking that the work is not found in databases using an originality checker. If there is evidence of plagiarism, it informs the editorial board and rejects the proposed paper. In the absence of evidence of a match between the manuscript text and published research, the Editor-in-Chief submits the proposed article to the Managing Editor of the issue for review and editing.

Duties of the Managing Editor

The Managing Editor checks the anonymous file for the presence of the author's name in the text of the manuscript or in the title of the electronic file. He/she communicates with the author when necessary to clarify circumstances and in connection with the review of the article.

The Managing Editor refers the anonymous article for review to two reviewers whose field of expertise falls within the subject matter of the manuscript. If either reviewer refuses, he/she will refer the manuscript to another appropriate reviewer. Reviewing is performed in a double anonymous reviewing setting. After reception of the reviews reflected in the review cards, the Managing Editor then proceeds with the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers: acceptance of the manuscript, acceptance with some changes, acceptance after significant changes, or rejection of the manuscript. If necessary, the article is subject to a second round of peer review.

The Managing Editor discusses the reviews and their conclusions with the Editor-in-Chief and informs the author of the decision. Upon acceptance, he/she sends the manuscript for style editing and proofreading. If the article needs to be improved, he/she contacts the author to refer him/her to the guidelines and recommendations in the reviews. The improved manuscript is checked by the responsible editor for the necessary changes and, after acceptance, is referred for style editing and proofreading.

Duties of the authors

Authors are directly responsible for the accuracy of their scientific publications and must comply with the specified citation rules.

The following are unacceptable: plagiarism in all its forms; falsification of data and results in the submitted material; simultaneous submission of the same manuscript for publication in different journals or other publications; inclusion of co-authors of persons who have no real contribution to the research and writing of the corresponding text; use of non-scientific arguments; omission of contributions of other authors in the field under study.

Authors should describe their work, referring correctly to the sources, pointing out and objectively discussing the relevance and scientific significance of the research.

Authors shall attest to the originality of their work with a declaration of authorship.

Authors must ensure that they have written a wholly original work, and if they have used someone else's work, it must be cited. Plagiarism in all its forms (presenting someone else's work as one's own, paraphrasing substantial parts of someone else's work without crediting the author, presenting the results of someone else's research as one's own, etc.) constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the editors with primary data related to the article. They should be prepared to ensure that other scientists and researchers have access to this data after publication of the article, subject to respect for copyright and ownership of the primary data.

Authors have an obligation to participate in the anonymous peer review process and to respond promptly to queries from the editors regarding primary data, clarification of text, or copyright. Authors should revise and resubmit their manuscript after considering the comments and recommendations given. If an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her own text, it is the author's responsibility to notify the editors immediately and to cooperate with them so that the necessary corrections can be made.

Duties of reviewers

Reviewing articles for the Journal of Pedagogical and Social Research aims to objectively assess the contribution and originality of the research work presented in the the submitted texts. The reviews help the editorial board in making decisions on the publication of the submissions. They are also intended to assist authors in improving their texts.

Each manuscript is submitted to two reviewers whose field of research is closest to the topic of the manuscript. They receive an anonymous copy of the manuscript, which they assess against the criteria on the reviewer card.

A reviewer who does not feel sufficiently qualified to judge the scientific merit of the manuscript submitted to them, or is unable to complete the assigned review in a timely manner, is required to inform the editorial board in a timely manner and withdraw from the reviewing activity. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts on the condition that they have a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions associated with the manuscript.

Reviewers shall give an opinion on the material they review, which may be one of four possible opinions as indicated on the reviewer's scorecard: accept; accept after some revision; accept after substantial revision; reject. In cases where one reviewer proposes acceptance and the other rejection, a referee reviewer is indicated whose opinion is final.

Manuscripts received for peer review should be considered as copyright documents. Reviewers may not disseminate information from manuscripts received for review or use it in their scholarly work.

Reviews must contain reasoned and objective evaluations of the manuscripts. Subjective attitudes towards the content of the text are unacceptable.

Reviewers are expected to ascertain whether the authors have correctly referenced the sources used. They are required to notify the editorial team of any instances of omitted citation, and of similarity or overlap of the manuscript with other publications known to them.

1 https://publicationethics.org/

2 https://astro.phys.uni-sofia.bg/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Etichen-kodeks-SU.pdf