Aim and Scope

The main purpose of the journal is to provide an opportunity for the scientific community to publish the latest original results of their research in the field of nomadic studies, to draw attention of scientists to promising and relevant areas of modern science, including specialists from related fields, as well as university teachers who give lectures on relevant topics.

The most important tasks of the journal are:

• synthesis of basic science and applied research in the field of Nomad studies;
• promotion of the results of interdisciplinary research in this field;
• strengthening the integration of Russian scientists into the international scientific community.

Section Policies

NATIONAL HISTORY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

GENERAL HISTORY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ARCHEOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ETHNOGRAPHY, ETHNOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORIOGRAPHY, SOURCE STUDIES AND METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

THEORY AND HISTORY OF CULTURE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

THEOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ПЕРЕВОДЫ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

We publish four issues in a year.

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

1. Peer Review Procedures

1.1. Manuscripts of scientific articles (other materials) submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal are subject to obligatory peer review. The manuscripts submitted to the «Nomadic civilization: historical research» are subject to double external ‘blind’ peer review, i.e., in the process of peer review the identities of reviewers and authors are hidden (concealed) from each other. For this purpose, authors have to take measures and guarantee that their submitted manuscripts in their personal accounts be duly prepared so as not to reveal identities of the authors (see * and **).

* Authors have to remove from the text of the manuscript any information indicating their personality (names of authors and their places of work) before its submission to the Editorial Office (see Step 2 of Rules of the Submission and Preparation of the Article's Manuscript).

** Along with removal of names and indications of authors’ places of work under the manuscript title, the author is to take the following steps which guarantee appropriate readiness of the manuscript for double blind peer review. So, to facilitate this authors have - to formulate references to earlier published works of the authors (of the manuscript) in third person. For example, instead of "we / authors showed before [Ivanov, Petrov 2015]" there should be written "Ivanov and Petrov showed [Ivanov, Petrov 2015]"; to make sure that the provided figures and tables contain no references to places of authors’ work; to save important references  to works of the authors or other individuals, but at the same time to limit a circle of references to the authors’ works only to those that are relevant for the peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript; to formulate quotes from the authors’ published works in the text as follows: "[Anonymous author  2007]"; for depersonalization (of the authors) in the list of references: "[Anonymous author 2007] Data deleted for double blind peer review"; to delete data on financing sources; to delete any personal information (including names of the authors) from names of files, and to make sure that properties of the document are also depersonalized.

1.2. All peer reviewers are acknowledged specialists in the field the peer reviewed materials are related to and have published works on the topic of the peer reviewed article in recent three years. The author or co-authors cannot peer review their own materials, and neither can scientific advisors of degree seeking applicants, nor employees of the institution the author (authors) is (are) affiliated with. Highly experienced scholars and experts with extensive knowledge and experience in relevant scientific disciplines are employed from other scientific institutions to provide peer reviews.

1.3. Peer review deadlines are determined by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the journal individually. The peer review is to be finalized within 4-6 weeks maximum from the date a manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board.

1.4. Peer review is confidential: the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the peer review process. Peer reviewers’ personal data remain anonymous to authors and are available only to authorized employees of the Editorial Office. The peer reviewer’s name can be communicated to the author only with the peer reviewer’s consent.

1.5. Peer reviewers have no right to use data obtained from the submitted work before its publication. 

1.6. Peer reviews are completed electronically (online) within the journal system.

1.7. The Editorial Board submits soft copies of peer review reports to the author (authors) upon due request only. The article improved (revised) by the author is subject to another peer review by the same peer reviewer or another expert at the discretion of the Editorial Board.

1.8.  If the author disagrees with the peer reviewer’s remarks, the former can re-apply for peer review or withdraw the article, of which the Editorial Office is to be duly informed.

1.9. In case of a negative peer review the author (authors) can apply for another one by a different expert who remains unaware of the previous peer review outcomes. Upon receipt of two successive negative peer review reports copies of the latter are submitted to the author (authors) upon due request.

1.10. In case the submitted article is denied any peer review and/or further consideration, a reasoned written refusal of the Editorial Board shall be delivered to the author (authors).

1.11. The final decision whether the article is worth publishing is made by the Editorial Board of the journal.

1.12. Materials as follows are denied publication in the journal:

• articles the contents of which are not related to the scientific fields the periodical specializes in;
• articles that do not meet the established formatting requirements,  whose authors refuse to introduce certain formal improvements;
• articles containing no essential improvements as required by the delivered reasonable peer reviewer’s remarks.

Articles containing elements of plagiarism are automatically withdrawn from the consideration, and the authors are deprived of the opportunity to publish their work in the journal.

1.13. The electronic Editorial Board keeps the original hard copies of peer reviews from the publication date and upon receipt of a corresponding inquiry shall forward copies of peer reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. 

1.14. The journal does not charge authors any peer review fees.

2. Peer Review Content Requirements

2.1. The peer review is to contain a qualified analysis of the article’s content, providing a reasonable assessment and well-founded recommendations.  

2.2. The peer review in the form proposed by the Editorial Board  shall contain answers to the questions as follows:

• whether the contents of the article agree with what is mentioned in its title;
• whether the article meets the established formatting requirements;
• general description and assessment of the article’s content (topic, focus, relevance, including those of introduced scientific ideas and results, validity and significance, practical application prospects);
• the article’s content (originality of the materials, existence/absence of previously published works, identified inaccurate statements, arguable points, etc.);
• presentation of the publication (clarity, brevity, availability and completeness of reference aids, text layout);
• available opportunities to reduce the text without detriment to the understanding of the research statements and results provided;
• the exact benefits and weaknesses of the article, corrections and supplements to be introduced by the author (authors).

2.3. The final part of a peer review report is to contain general conclusions regarding the article as well as recommendations whether the article can be published in the «Nomadic civilization: historical research» or it should be sent back for improvement, or disapproved for publication within a certain scientific field according to the current Nomenclature for Fields of Science adopted by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation (Rus. ВАК РФ).

2.4. The electronic (online) form of the review has the following structure:

– Existence of signs of illegal loan or other violations of scientific ethics

– Relevance of subject

– Clarity of statement of a scientific problem and depth of its apprehension

– Introduction of the background and relevant scientific context

– Scientific novelty of the final result

– Possession of a scientific discourse, observance of standard requirements to execution of the text and bibliographic tools of article

– Additional comments and remarks (optionally)

– Recommendation of the peer reviewer

3. Guidelines for the reviewer

3.1. Log into a personal account on the journal website.

3.2. Click on Reviewer.

3.3. Click on the title of the submitted article.

3.4. A new page with the summary of the article will open.

3.5. Scroll down to Peer Review Stages, and then one is to either give consent or refuse to perform a peer review.

3.6. In  Step 1 you need to choose:

I will peer review - I will not be able to peer review.

You need to click on the picture near the answer you choose.

A new page containing the answer will be automatically created. It is necessary to press the button Send.

3.7. In case of an affirmative answer the page will reboot, and you will return on the page of article review.

3.8. The manuscript will be available only in case the potential reviewer agrees to review. Click on names of files of the article to see them or to download them to your computer.

3.9. Click on Peer Review and fill in the form.

3.10. You can also upload additional files with questions to the author/editor or comments for them from your computer.

3.11. Once the peer review form is filled in,  choose your recommendation concerning the article  (Accept for publication; Corrections required; To be supplemented/elaborated and re-peer reviewed; Send to another journal; To be rejected (Publication denied); See comments) and press  Send the Review to the Editor.

Publishing Ethics

1. Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not just a simple means of scientific discourse, it also contributes to further development of a corresponding scientific field. Thus, it is important to establish standards of ethical conduct for all parties involved, namely: Authors, Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors-in-Chief, Editors, Peer Reviewers, Publisher and Scientific Society with regard to the scientific journal “Nomadic civilization: historical researches”.  .

1.2. The Publisher and the Editorial Board conduct not only scientific discourse, it also bears the responsibility that all modern recommendations in the work published should be met.

1.3. The Publisher and the Editorial Board assume the responsibility as to conduct strict supervision over the research materials. Our journal’s programs are clean reports of scientific thought and research development and we comprehend the responsibility for an appropriate representation of the reports, especially in terms of ethical aspects of publications set forth herein.

2. Duties of the Editors

2.1. Publication Decision

The Editor-in-chief of the scientific journal «Nomadic civilization: historical research» is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often in cooperation with the recommendations of the reviewers and members of the Editorial Board. The validation of the work in question and its scholarly importance must always drive such decisions. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board, being constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, legitimacy and plagiarism.

2.2. Fair Play

Members of the Editorial Board should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the Authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial (scientific) advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's own research without the expressed written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript shall be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors must recuse themselves from considering manuscripts (instead they shall ask another editor, assistant editor to handle the manuscript or shall cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board when handling the work instead of personal reviewing and making a decision) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript.

2.5. Supervision over Publications

The Editor that submits valid evidence that statements or conclusions of the manuscript are false (improper) shall inform the Publisher for prompt notification and introduction of amendments, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other corresponding statements.

2.6. Involvement and Cooperation in Research

The Editor-in-Chief in cooperation with the Publisher should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Peer Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the Editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. The Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness

Any selected Peer reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review shall be impossible should notify the scientific journal «Nomadic civilization: historical research» and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.

3.4. Requirements for the Manuscript and Objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Primary Source

Peer reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A peer reviewer should also call to the Editor-in-chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the expressed written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Peer reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting Standards

4.1.1 Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and the author’s point of view should be clearly indicated.

4.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any case be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after the publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1. Authors should ensure that they have submitted entirely original works, and if the authors have used the works or statements of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.  Multiple, Redundant and Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an Author must not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Primary Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as peer reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the manuscript

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as wage labour, honoraria, grants or other funding, consultancies, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements. All potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the published work, it is his/her obligation to promptly notify the «Nomadic civilization: historical research»  journal’s Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with him/her to either correct the paper or to retract the paper. If the Editor-in-chief learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the Author’s obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper.

Founder

• FSBEI HE «Kalmyk State University named after B.B. Gorodovikov»

Author fees

Publication in “Nomadic civilization: historical research" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Plagiarism detection

“Nomadic civilization: historical research" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Nomadic civilization: historical research", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Sovremennaya revmatologiya" (the “Modern Rheumatology Journal”) we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)