- Focus and Scope
- Section Policies
- Peer Review Process
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving
- Editor in Chief
- Editorial board
Focus and Scope
Edition policy (goal and tasks)
The goal of the edition is to highlight the current theoretical and practical aspects of the social communications (journalism, publishing and editing, advertising and PR, document science), sociology.
Tasks:
Publication of scientific research papers concerning the upcoming trends of fundamental sciences, topical applied developments, implementation of innovative projects for the exchange of scientific ideas, research methodology and practical achievements;
provision of information on specialized scientific conferences, symposia, round tables, exhibitions;
publication of abstracts, press notices and reviews of new study guides, textbooks and monographs;
provision of information for scientific community about important events in the field of social communications.
Thematic orientation: theory and history of social communications, theory and history of journalism, publishing and editing, documentation, applied social and communication technologies, sociology, media education.
Section Policies
Статьи
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
Peer Review of the articles
General Provisions
Review of the manuscripts submitted by the authors to the editorial board of the scientific journal "State and Regions. Series: Social Communications"(hereinafter – SRSC), is conducted by reviewers through anhistonimal expertise. Anhistonimal expertise means that the texts of the articles are submitted to reviewers without the author's surname. Authors do not receive the names of reviewers, reviewers are not informed of the authors' names. The interaction of reviewers and authors is carried out only through the editorial staff.
The Editorial Board does not inform anyone about the manuscript (content, review process, critical remarks of reviewers, final decision), except for the members of the Editorial Board of SRSC, the author and reviewers themselves.
Only the members of the Editorial Board of SRSC and the author have the right to see the reviews. The terms for reviewing the articles are up to two month.
The process of the analysis of scientific articles is aimed at establishing the degree of their value, originality, relevance and scientific expediency, suitability of the manuscript for publication, taking into account the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The purpose of the review is to establish the relevance of the text of the articles to the standards of quality of scientific articles. The tasks of the review are to verify:
• the general scientific level of the article, in particular the relevance of the research, the presence of the problem in it, its significance for the implementation of important scientific and practical tasks, the correctness and feasibility of applying the methods during the study, the level of generalization when formulating the conclusions of the study, etc .;
• the content and structure of the article;
• the correct use of professional (special) vocabulary, etc.
1. Manuscript submittion
1.1. The author submits an article to the Editorial Board, which corresponds to the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further review, and it’s reported to their authors.
1.2. Manuscripts submitted for publication in SRSC are assigned a unique registration code that provides the author with anonymity when reviewing.
1.3. The degree of uniqueness and originality of the author's text should be determined in all the manuscripts submitted for review, which is done by the corresponding software.
1.4. In the case of compliance of the manuscript with the requirements of the informational policy of SRSC and the rules for the preparation of articles for publication, the manuscript is sent to the expert in the relevant field of expertise.
2. Peer Review Procedure
Each article submitted to the editorial staff of DRSС must undergo a peer review procedure. It is oriented towards the most objective and independent assessment of the content of the scientific article, its conformity with the international requirements, which are necessary to the articles of scientific publications, competent, comprehensive and thorough analysis of both the positive qualities of the article and its specific disadvantages and provides the following:
2.1. All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board are submitted to a reviewer, taking into account the profile of his/her research. The reviewer is appointed by the Editor-in-Chief of SRSC or his/her deputy. In some cases, the issue of the choice of the reviewer is decided at the meeting of the Editorial Board.
2.2. Peer review is carried out according to the double-blind principle (double blind interaction, when neither author, nor reviewer know each other). Communication between the author and the reviewer is carried out virtually (or via e-mail, or through the SRSC deputy editor-in-chief). The Editorial Board ensures that all articles in each release are considered in double-blind review.
2.3. The articles are reviewed by the members of the Editorial Board of SRSC, who are highly qualified national and foreign experts (mostly doctors of sciences, professors) who possess a solid knowledge of social communications, have the appropriate competence, as well as work experience in a specific scientific field.
2.4. The reviewer can not be a co-author of the article, which is under review, as well as the scientific supervisor of the applicant.
2.5. After obtaining of the manuscript by the Editorial Board, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of observing the materials in a 7-day period, based on the correspondence of his/her own qualification to the research direction of the author of the article and the absence of any conflict of scientific interests. If there is any bias, conflicting interests in a state of competition or different views, the reviewer should refuse to review the article and notify the Editorial Board. The latter should decide on the appointment of another expert.
2.6. The reviewer, as a rule, concludes within two month about the possibility of publishing the article. The terms of review in each individual case may vary depending on the conditions which are necessary for the most objective assessment of the degree of value of the article.
2.7. After final review of the article, the reviewer fills in a standardized form containing his/her conclusions. When preparing this form, the Editorial Board uses and summarizes the provisions of the generally accepted recommendations regarding the Review Quality Instrument review procedure.
The content of the review should reflect the following main provisions
а) originality and relevance of the article;
b) the degree of scientific innovation of the research (what has been proven, received, established, determined, proposed for the first time, or improved, or acquired further development, etc.);
c) the significance of the results obtained for further development of the theory and practice of the scientific field;
d) appropriateness and correctness of the use of methods and material that reveal the content of the study and its statistical data;
e) completeness of the coverage of theoretical and experimental material; the relevance of the results obtained to the investigated realities;
f) correspondence of the conclusions to the purpose and objectives of the research;
g) the quality of working out literary sources and drawing up the list of sources (references);
h) the correspondence of the article as a whole and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references) to the established volume and length set by the editors;
i) the quality of the general appearance of the article (scientific style, accepted terminology, clarity of formulation, comprehension for perception, logical, argumentative, etc.).
The final part of the review should contain well-balanced conclusions about the article as a whole and clearly-motivated recommendations or conclusion about the necessity of its publication in SRSC, or about the need for its revision, or rejection. In the case of a negative evaluation in general (recommendation on the inexpediency of publication), the reviewer must justify his/her decision thoroughly). The editorial staff of SRSC sends the author an e-mail with the results of the analysis of the article.
3. Results of the Peer review
At the author’s request the Editorial Board informs him/her of the decision to accept the manuscript for publication. Solutions could be the following: recommend for publication, revise the article, reject.
3.1. If the review contains comments with the suggestion that the article should be revised (to make certain adjustments), the article is sent to the author for its improvement and submission of the updated version, or correct and confident disposition of these deficiencies, or the reasoned motivation of those author’s provisions that are perceived as improper and inappropriate. To the updated article, the author adds, based on the opinion of the reviewer, a letter, which contains answers to all comments and explanations to the changes made therein. An improved version of the article is again given to the reviewer for a re-decision and, if agreed with the author, to prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of its publication. The date of the confirmation of the article for publication is considered the date of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) received by the editorial staff as to the justification of the publication of the article in this scientific publication.
3.2. In case of discussion situations and in case of disagreement between the author and the opinion of the reviewer, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the Editorial Board, which organizes an additional or re-review by another expert. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the articles if the author fails to dispose the arguments expressed by the reviewers or his/her unwillingness to take into account their suggestions and remarks. At the request of the first reviewer, the Editorial Board may submit the article to another reviewer with the obligatory adherence to the principles of double-blind reviewing.
3.3. The final decision on the possibility of publishing an article which is subject to additional or re-review is taken by the Editor-in-Chief. After receiving the decision to allow the article to be published, the author is notified about it and about the expected publication period.
3.4. In the case of a positive decision on the reasonability of publishing a re-reviewed article, the latter goes to the editorial portfolio of the SRSC and in the order of the queue and taking into account its relevance, it is subject to its publication. In some cases, according to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article is published in the nearest issue of SRSC.
3.5. The Editorial Board reserves the right to scientific and literary editing of the article content in agreement with the author. Minor corrections of lexical-semantic, punctuation-grammatical, linguistic or formal-technical character, which do not affect the quality of the content of the article, are made by the technical editor without the author’s consent. If necessary, the clarification of certain issues that arose, or in connection with the wishes of the author of the manuscript, the latter returned to him/her in the form of a layout for approval.
3.6. At the author’s request, the Editorial Board provides him/her with a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication signed by the Editor-in-Chief or his/her deputy.
4. Responsibility and obligations of authors and reviewers
4.1. Responsibility for infringing the copyright of other scientists (interference in their intellectual property, incorrect quotes, lack of references, etc.) and non-compliance of the articles with the current standards of manuscript preparation is carried out by the author of the article.
4.2. The reliability of the facts and data given in the article, the validity of the conclusions drawn, the recommendations given, as well as its scientific and practical level, in addition to the author, is carried out by the reviewer.
5. The main reasons for the revision of the article
The main reasons for improving the article are the following
5.1. The article does not contain abstracts in Ukrainian, Russian or English, or, if they are available, the number of characters and the content do not meet the established requirements.
5.2. The structure of the article does not meet the requirements.
5.3. The content of the article is not detailed enough for readers to fully understand the approach suggested by the author.
5.4. The article does not contain scientific novelty.
5.5. It’s not clearly indicated in the article which part of the text or conclusions reflects innovation in science.
5.6. The Reference list (list of sources) does not contain scientific sources, the names of authors which are mentioned in the text of the article.
5.7. The article contains theories, concepts, empirical materials, conclusions, etc., which are not fully disclosed and are not supported by the presented data, arguments or information provided.
5.8. The article does not provide a sufficient description of the methods and material that, if necessary, would allow other scientists to repeat the experiment.
5.9. There’s lack of clear and understandable descriptions or explanations, for example, tested hypotheses, the content and nature of experiments, examples of statistical data or experimental samples, etc. in the article.
5.10. The procedure of the experiment is described badly and incomprehensively, mistakes in statistical indicators are made.
5.11. The article does not meet the standards of language culture.
5.12. The Reference list (list of sources used in the article) is not transliterated.
6. Repeated monitoring of the manuscript of the article and the response to the reviewers’ comments
Repeated scientific analysis of the article and preparation by the author of the answer to the comments of the reviewers means that the author should take the following steps:
6.1. Pay attention to all comments provided by the editor and reviewer (s).
6.2. Conduct all additional experiments or perform a re-analysis, taking into account analytical considerations and recommendations of reviewers.
6.3. Comment on all changes made in the content of the article, and send them by return letter to the e-mail address of the edition.
6.4. Provide a tolerant scientific response to all discussion issues. Mark comments with which the author agrees, and with which – does not.
6.5. Stipulate it clear in the article all the changes that were made during the follow-up revision of the article (highlight in color).
6.6. Return the revised manuscript in the return letter in terms set by the Editor-in-Chief.
7. Reasons for not publishing articles
The following factors are the reasons for the rejection of the article:
7.1. The review of the manuscript for text borrowing did not give a positive result.
7.2. The article does not correspond to the branch profile of the scientific journal SRSC.
7.3. The article does not meet the requirements stipulated by the legislative standardized approaches to scientific articles, established by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international conventions.
7.4. Comments and recommendations from reviewers on the discussion issues that arose during the review were not taken into account.
7.5. The Editorial Board, on the basis of an expert assessment of two reviewers, made a decision to return the manuscript without the right to re-submit it to the editors.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Archiving
This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...
Editor in Chief
Bessarab Аnastssiia,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Professor,
Professor at Special Education and Psychology Department,
Municipal Institution of Higher Education
«Khortytsia National Educational Rehabilitation Academy», Zaporizhia, Ukraine;
Professor of Journalism and Ukrainian Philology Department,
Classical Private University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
Scopus Author ID: 57211852356
Editorial board
Kholod Oleksandr,
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor,
Head of Journalism Department,
Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6851-0176
Web of Science ResearcherID: AAD-5598-2019
Hordiienko Nataliia,
Doctor of Social Sciences, Professor,
Professor at Social Work Department,
Municipal Institution of Higher Education «Khortytsia National Educational Rehabilitation Academy», Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4060-6846
Web of Science Researcher ID: AAH-8758-2019
Pozdniakova-Kyrbiatieva Ellina,
Doctor of Social Sciences, Professor,
Professor at Social Work Department,
Municipal Institution of Higher Education «Khortytsia National Educational Rehabilitation Academy», Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2945-380X
Scopus Author ID: 57209716544
Diachenko Mariia,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications, Doctor of Education, Docent,
Professor at Theory and Practice of Translation and Interpreting Department,
Classical Private University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7250-1371
Zelinska Nadia,
Doctor of Philological Sciences (speciality – journalism), Professor
Chief of Media Communications Department
Ukrainian Academy of Printing, Lviv, Ukraine
Zykun Nataliia,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Professor, Professor, Head of Journalism, Ukrainian Philology and Culture Department,
University of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine, Irpin, Ukraine
Scopus Author ID: 57204534157
Bohuslavskyi Oleh,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Professor
Zhenchenko Maryna,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent, Docent at Publishing and Editing Department,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
Zoska Yana,
Doctor of Social Sciences, Professor,
Professor at Sociology and Social Work Department,
Classic Private University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0407-1407
Kovpak Viktoriia,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent,
Professor at Communication Theory, Advertising and Public Relations Department,
Zaporizhzhia National University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
Lyzanchuk Vasyl,
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor
Head of Department of Broadcasting and Television
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6995-0360
Penchuk Inna,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Professor,
Head of Journalism and Ukrainian Philology Department,
Classic Private University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9880-1786
Ponomarenko Liudmyla,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Professor,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
Poplavska Nataliia,
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor,
Head of Journalism Department
Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University, Ternopil, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1100-5002
Teremko Vasyl,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent, Head of Publishing and Editing Department,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9045-7674
Finkler Yurii,
Doctor of Philological Sciences (speciality – journalism), Professor
Professor at Journalism Department
Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University, Mykolaiv, Ukraine
Shevchenko Olena,
Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Professor,
Professor at Information Activities and Media Communications Department,
Odessa National Polytechnic University, Odesa, Ukraine
Dosenko Anzhela,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications,
Docent at Journalism and New Media Department,
Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Kyiv, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5415-1299
Web of Science Researcher: ID Z-1396-2019
Scopus Author ID: 57211338507
Kitsa Mar’iana,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent,
Docent at Journalism and Mass Media Department,
Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine
Web of Science ResearcherID: Q-1025-2017
Scopus Author ID: 57201342637
Mudra Iryna,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent,
Docent at Journalism and Mass Media Department,
Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine
Scopus Author ID: 57201339422
https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57201339422
Poliezhaiev Yurii,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent,
Docent at Foreign Languages of Professional Communications Department,
Zaporizhzhia Polytechnic National University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
Web of Science ResearcherID: AAB-8170-2020
Bondarenko Iryna,
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Docent,
Docent at Communication Theory, Advertising and Public Relations Department,
Zaporizhzhia National University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
Web of Science ResearcherID: AAD-5393-2020
Kozyriatska Svitlana,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications,
Docent at Culturology and Ukrainian Studies Department,
Zaporizhzhia State Medical University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
Web of Science ResearcherID: A-9607-2018
Kodatska Nataliia,
candidate of sciences in sociology,
assistant professor of Journalism Department,
University of Customs and Finance,
Dnipro, Ukraine,
ORCID: 0000-0003-0516-5333
Hyrina Tetiana,
Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications, Docent,
Professor at Journalism, Ukrainian Philology and Culture Department,
University of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine, Irpin, Ukraine
Khitrova Tetiana,
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Docent,
Docent at Journalism Department,
Zaporizhzhia Polytechnic National University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8430-8296
Foreign members of editorial board:
Rahimli Ruslan Hilal ohly,
Candidate of Historical Sciences, Docent,
Senior Research Scientist,
Centre of Anthropology of Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan
Plishka Bohdan,
Doctor of Philosophy in Politology,
Applied Social Sciences Department,
Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3021-905X, PBN ID: 912063
Synovets Oleksandra,
Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology and Social Communications,
Applied Social Sciences Department
Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8251-2322, PBN ID: 929394