About the collection of articles “Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art”

This is a serial edition of conference papers.

It includes the best research works on theory and history of visual arts and architecture presented at the conference “Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art”, as well as reviews of recently published books on the history of art and culture.

It is published annually since 2011 and has an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN 2312-2129).

The members of Editorial board are prominent specialists in history and theory of art from different cities and countries (Russia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Serbia, USA and other).

The content is peer reviewed by experts from different institutions. The description of the peer review process is available online.

The articles are published in English and Russian. All articles have titles, abstracts and references in English (in Roman script) and are therefore relevant for and readable by an international audience.

The title has publication ethics and publication malpractice statement available online.

Selection criteria for the publication of articles

The main criterion is the high quality of research work attested by the peer review. The most important aspects are:

• novelty, originality and topicality: preference will be given to papers containing new evidence or new approach to a certain problem already known in the field;
• high level of research methodology: mastering different approaches, use of scholarly literature in the field, convincing argumentation, clarity of conclusions;
• the scale of research: preference will be given to works successfully dealing with major tasks;
• substantial and adequate presentation of research results in the abstract.

The Editorial board welcomes publications from authors of different nationalities.

Reprinting in full or in part the works already published is not permitted.

The number of articles to be included in each issue is defined annually by the Editorial board. It may depend on funds available for publication and on some particular aspects of the past conference.

The Editorial board will not consider submissions not relevant to the scope of edition, neither late submissions, nor texts not conforming to the guidelines for publication.

Permanent sections

There are two permanent sections in the collection: research articles and book reviews. The articles are divided according to subject headings and are presented in roughly chronological order. The subject headings may vary according to the specific aspects of every past conference.

In some issues other sections may be added, such as “Source Studies”, “Discussion”, “Round Table” etc.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement 

The publication ethics is based on international standards and the legislation of the Russian Federation: the code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE; the norms of the Russian Federation Civil Code, chapter 70 “Intellectual property rights”.

Editors commit themselves to be guided by the principles of objectivity and validity. The editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, race, sex or sexual orientation of the authors.

Editors are responsible for everything published in the collection.

General duties and responsibilities of Editors

The Editors should:

• ensure the high academic standard and quality of the material they publish;
• constantly improve the edition;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
• always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Relations with readers

• readers can access all the materials of the collection of articles published online for free in read mode;
• readers should be informed about the identity of authors of the published materials, their affiliation and contacts;
• readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research;
• copying, replication and extensive verbal quotation of articles is not permitted.

Relations with authors

• authors submit texts of articles or book reviews conforming to the guidelines for publication available online within the deadline indicated;
• editors will not consider submissions not relevant to the scope of edition, neither late submissions, nor texts not conforming to the guidelines for publication available online;
• all submissions will pass through the blind peer review process as is described below;
• according to the results of peer review, the Editors will decide either to reject or accept an article. In the latter case it may be either accepted for publication as it is, or only with certain amendments recommended by the reviewers;
• Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, attested by peer review;
• Editors inform the authors about the outcome of their submissions and give further directions to those whose articles have been accepted;
• Editors should not reverse decisions to accept or reject submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission. New Editors should not overturn decisions made by the previous Editors unless serious problems are identified;
• Authors may ask for the justification for the rejection of their articles. Upon such a request, the Editors will send a written justification to the author containing the abstracts of reviews (without the indication of names and affiliation of the reviewers); this may be used by the authors to appeal against editorial decisions;
• Authors guarantee that they possess exclusive copyrights for their own texts they intend to publish and have not committed to anyone else to use them otherwise;
• Authors guarantee that they have the official permission to publish illustrations they submit together with the article;
• Editors make an official license agreement with every author;
• Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, including editing, making-up the collection, page-proof and printing;
• all publications of research articles and book reviews are for free.

The peer review process

• the managing editor checks whether the submissions meet the guidelines for publication available online;
• the texts not meeting the guidelines will not be processed;
• the managing editor removes the name and affiliation of the author and sends each article to two Reviewers selected previously by the Editorial board as acknowledged specialists in the field;
• the managing editor informs the Reviewers on everything that is expected of them, including the criteria of evaluation, the confidentiality and the ethic norms;
• Reviewers send their reviews to the Editors who thereupon make their decisions on whether to reject or accept articles with or without any amendments;
• Authors are informed about the outcome of their submission;
• Editors seek to exclude competing interests and require that the Reviewers disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission;
• Reviews are kept by Editors and can be sent to the Authors upon request (without the name and affiliation of the reviewer). 

Pursuing misconduct

• whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence;
• if, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems;
• Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines;
• Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers;
• Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases;
• Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should make all reasonable attempts to obtain a resolution to the problem or ask some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.