JOURNAL "BULLETIN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC AND HUMANITARIAN RESEARCH"

Journal "BULLETIN SOCIAL-ECONOMIC AND HUMANITARIAN RESEARCH" publishes articles about the relationship between different state institutions and society. The editorial Board determines the procedure for publication of articles. The author retains the copyrights to his articles. Journal is published two times a year: № 1 - January, February, March, April, May, June, № 2 - July, August, September, October, November, December. Scientific Direction: The journal publishes articles in the following scientific areas: Historical Sciences and Archeology; Philosophical Sciences; Economic Sciences; Editorial Process: The manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it has not been published anywhere, is either submitted or has already been accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects the authors to allow one of them to correspond with the journal on all issues related to the manuscript. All received manuscripts are duly recognized. At submission, the editor first reviews all submitted manuscripts in order to ensure their formal consideration. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical deficiencies or lack of meaningful communication, if they are not prepared in accordance with the instructions in the journal, are rejected before proceeding to official review. Manuscripts, which are unlikely to be of interest to readers, may also be rejected at this stage. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers. Each manuscript is finally reviewed by the editor of the journal, which, based on the comments of reviewers, makes the final decision on the manuscript. Comments and suggestions received from reviewers are sent to the appropriate author. If necessary, the author should provide a response to the commentator's comments points and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated until the reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript. Manuscripts accepted for publication are copied for grammar, punctuation, printing style and format. Page proofs are sent to the appropriate author. It is expected that the relevant author will return the corrected evidence within two days. It may not be possible to include patches received after this period. The entire process of submitting the manuscript to the final decision and sending and receiving evidence is completed online. The journal does not copy the text of the received manuscripts; so it is important that the work is understandable. Perfect, stylish English is not essential, but the language should be clear and unambiguous. If the language of the document is not satisfactory, the reviewer may recommend that authors seek independent editorial assistance before submitting the review. Poor presentation and language are justified reasons for rejecting the manuscript. If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal. The peer-review process is single blinded; that is, the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. The review process should ensure that all authors have equal opportunities to publish their documents. Acceptance and planning of publication of articles in the journal should not prevent the added criteria and procedures that are different from those contained in the review process