This document, carefully crafted to meet the specific needs of the Annual of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”—Faculty of History, outlines the ethical guidelines for all participants in the scholarly publishing process. It is based on the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Elsevier policies, the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors, and ALLEA | All European Academies, and is fully aligned with the requirements of the publisher, “St. Kliment Ohridski” University Press. The aim is to provide a robust framework that upholds integrity, transparency, and accountability, thereby ensuring the credibility of scholarly publishing. These guidelines address critical areas such as authorship, data sharing, conflicts of interest and the management of misconduct, and cover the entire lifecycle of a publication.
As a central participant in the publishing process, the Editorial Board recognises the ethical responsibilities of all individuals involved in the publishing process. Consequently, it is committed to promoting these guidelines to all those involved in the creation and production of scholarly works in the Annual of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”—Faculty of History. These guidelines must be followed by editors, reviewers, and authors as part of a collective effort to provide objective and valuable information to all interested parties.
a) Authorship, originality, and plagiarism
Authors bear primary responsibility for the integrity and originality of the work submitted. Authorship will only be attributed to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the study, including involvement in the conception and design of the research, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of the results. Practices such as ghost authorship, gift authorship, and guest authorship will be strictly sanctioned upon detection. Each author must approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission, and any authorship disputes should be resolved prior to submission.
Maintaining originality is a fundamental ethical obligation for authors. Plagiarism, whether direct copying, paraphrasing without citation, or self-plagiarism (reusing one’s own previously published work), is strictly prohibited. A plagiarism detection tool, StikePlagiarism, has been implemented by the Editorial Board and will be used in the evaluation of manuscripts. Additionally, any form of data fabrication or falsification – where results are invented or data manipulated – is a serious breach of ethical conduct and undermines the credibility of the research. In the event of a confirmed breach of the Journal’s ethical guidelines, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript and suspend the author’s privilege to publish in the Annual for a period of up to 5 years.
b) Transparency and use of AI
Transparency in the reporting of research is essential. Authors must provide a full and transparent account of their methods, sources, and analyses in their work. It is imperative that authors consistently and appropriately acknowledge the contributions of others.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and Language Learning Models (LLMs) in the research process, including data analysis, manuscript writing, statistical modelling, or any other instance, must be fully disclosed.
c) Data Sharing
Given the scope and scale of the Annual, it is expected that most of the data used will be available in libraries, archives, and online. All data presented in the manuscript must be accurately reported, with full transparency regarding any transformations or manipulations. If the author is asked to disclose all or part of the data used in the research, they must be prepared to comply, if feasible.
d) Conflicts of interest (COI)
Conflicts of interest may be potential, perceived, or actual. Personal, political, financial, academic or religious considerations can affect objectivity in many ways. Authors must disclose them to avoid any appearance of bias in the research results. Financial conflicts may include, for example, grants and funding from governmental or non-governmental entities received for the conduct of the research, while non-financial conflicts may include personal relationships or academic rivalries. The author is allowed to submit a manuscript in which the research has been funded by any organisation, governmental or non-governmental body, etc., and is obliged to declare this in an appropriate and visible part of the manuscript. This is necessary to avoid COI's, involving editors, reviewers, or any other party involved in the publication of the manuscript. Full disclosure, as early as possible in the publication process, is also essential to maintaining the objectivity of the research and to ensure the academic integrity.
Authors have a duty to avoid all forms of research misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, data manipulation, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest. In the event of allegations of misconduct, authors are expected to cooperate fully with any investigation conducted by the Editorial Board of GSU-IF or any other entity associated with the Journal.
e) Retractions and corrections
Retractions and corrections may be necessary when misconduct is confirmed, and these actions are essential to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. It is the author’s responsibility to inform the Journal editors or publisher promptly of any significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, and to work with them to correct or retract the paper. If a third party notifies the editors or publisher of an error or inaccuracy in a manuscript, it is f the author’s responsibility either to revise the paper or to prove the authenticity of the original paper. This requires the author to engage constructively in post-publication discussions. Corrections or errata are issued for minor errors that do not affect the overall conclusions, while retractions are warranted for major issues such as confirmed plagiarism or data fabrication. Authors are also encouraged to participate in post-publication peer review discussions to promote a transparent and open dialogue about their research.
f) The appeal of editorial decisions
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe that the review process was biased or based on incorrect assessments. The appeal process involves a formal request from the author to the relevant editor via email or the OJS system, accompanied by a detailed explanation of the grounds for appeal. If the appeal is upheld by the Editorial Board, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by independent reviewers and the editor’s final decision will be communicated clearly and transparently.
Submission guidelines can be found on the relevant page of the website.
Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity and quality of the scholarly publishing process. The members of GSU-IF Editorial Board are listed on the relevant page of this website, along with their academic email addresses, ORCID, and affiliations. It is their ethical duty to ensure that submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently and solely on the basis of their academic merit. Editors are the gatekeepers of scholarly communication, ensuring the anonymity of authors and reviewers. Their decisions determine the reputation and credibility of the Journal. Editorial independence and adherence to the Journal's ethical practices are essential to promote a fair and objective review process. As editors are representatives of the Annual, they must collectively and individually uphold the reputation of GSU-IF. This includes, but is not limited to, handling conflicts of interest appropriately and overseeing the entire publication process with integrity.
One of the fundamental principles of editorial responsibility is to maintain independence in decision making. Editors must base their decisions on the scientific merit of the manuscript, the validity of the data, and the significance of the research findings, without being influenced by external factors. Transparency of the editorial process is ethically required. Personal bias, commercial interests, and pressure from affiliated organisations should not influence editorial decisions. Any concerns about undue influence should be raised with the Editor-in-Chief. In the event of a breach of the Ethical principles of the Journal, the Editorial Board may decide to suspend the editor's participation on the Board.
For example, editorial independence requires editors to avoid accepting manuscripts where they have a personal relationship with the authors or a vested interest in the outcome of the research, i.e. to avoid conflicts of interest (see the section below for more information). If an editor has collaborated with the author on the project, is directly related to the author, or stands to benefit financially from the research, they should recuse themselves from handling the manuscript. In such cases, the manuscript should be reassigned to an impartial colleague to ensure that the review process is unbiased.
Editors, including the Editor-in-Chief who performs the initial evaluation of all manuscripts, oversee the ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts and peer reviews throughout the editorial process. This includes ensuring that all research conforms to established ethical standards and regulations. Manuscripts that do not meet these ethical requirements will be returned to the authors for clarification or, in the case of a serious breach of ethical standards, rejected.
Research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, is a serious threat to the credibility of the scientific literature. Editors must investigate all allegations of misconduct thoroughly and impartially. When an allegation of misconduct is made, the editor should first gather all relevant information and review the evidence provided by the complainant. The editor may then contact the author’s institution or request an independent investigation.
At the initial stage of manuscript submission, the editors will use plagiarism detection tools (StrikePlagiarism) to check the originality of the submitted manuscript. The author reserves the right not to comply with this request and to withdraw the manuscript in writing.
If an allegation of plagiarism is made after publication, the article must be re-checked using a plagiarism detection tool. In the case of confirmed plagiarism, data manipulation, or fabrication, editors should consult with independent experts in the relevant field to assess the validity of the concerns. If the misconduct is substantiated, the manuscript must be retracted, and the reasons for the retraction must be clearly stated in a public notice.
There are two main elements to proper confidentiality safeguarding: the anonymity of authors and reviewers, ensuring the integrity of the double-blind peer review process, and the protection of sensitive information about the manuscript and its underlying research.
Protecting the anonymity of authors and reviewers is an important aspect of maintaining confidentiality. In a double-blind peer review process, reviewers and authors remain anonymous to minimise potential bias. Editors must ensure that the identities of either party are not inadvertently disclosed and should promptly address any breaches of confidentiality.
Editors are entrusted with sensitive information throughout the submission and review process, and maintaining confidentiality is paramount. Editors must not disclose details of a manuscript, including its content, authorship, or status in the review process, to anyone outside the Editorial Board and the reviewers involved in the evaluation. Editors must also refrain from using unpublished data or ideas obtained through the review process for their own research purposes, as this is a serious ethical breach. Confidentiality extends to all communications with reviewers and authors, and editors should ensure that sensitive information is protected at all stages.
By being selected as an Editorial Board member, editors are required to disclose any COIs they may have, including serving on the editorial board of another journal, as these may influence their editorial decisions. When assigning a task to an editor, the Editor-in-Chief must take this disclosed information into account in order to avoid the occurrence of COIs. If the editor has been assigned a manuscript that may have a direct or indirect interest in the editor’s objectivity, it is imperative that the editor promptly disclose this to the Editor-in-Chief. Common examples include a close personal relationship with the author or competing research interests in the same field.
To manage conflicts of interest effectively, editors should recuse themselves from the decision-making process when such a conflict arises. The manuscript should be reassigned to another editor without a COI to ensure that the review process remains impartial.
The policy of the Journal on conflicts of interest is based on the framework of the Regulations on the Structure and Activities of Sofia University.
f) Complaints, Appeals, and Editorial Accountability
Authors may submit complaints about perceived bias, procedural errors or unfair treatment during the review process to the Editorial Board, represented by the Editor-in-Chief. Editors are required to deal with these complaints objectively, to provide a clear response and, if necessary, to offer the possibility of an appeal. The appeals process involves a re-evaluation of the manuscript with new, independent reviewers to ensure a fair reassessment.
Editorial accountability requires that editors communicate clearly and consistently throughout the decision-making process. Feedback to authors should be constructive and based on objective criteria, focusing on the scientific quality and significance of the work. Editors should avoid making arbitrary decisions and must be prepared to justify their decisions if challenged by authors or external parties.
g) Post-Publication Oversight: Corrections, Retractions, and Discussions
Post-publication oversight is essential for maintaining the scholarly integrity of the Journal’s content. By adopting the Crossmark logo, the Editorial Board of the Annual of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”—Faculty of History (GSU-IF) demonstrates its commitment to upholding the published content and promptly informing readers of any changes. Editors should proactively address errors or ethical issues that arise after publication. Minor issues such as typographical errors or inaccuracies in author details (name, ORCID, email, affiliation) may warrant a correction notice, while significant ethical violations such as plagiarism or data falsification may require a formal retraction.
However, the final decision to implement any corrections or retractions must be made in accordance with the decision of the Editorial Board.
Editors will issue retraction notices that clearly state the reasons for the retraction and include information about the original article, which will be available on the Crossmark policy page. This ensures transparency and helps readers understand the context of the issue. In addition, the Editorial Board encourages constructive post-publication discussions, allowing the academic community to debate or provide feedback on published work. Letters to the Editorial Board are fully endorsed and supported by all members of the Board.
The guidelines for editors can be found on the relevant page of the website.
Reviewers play a vital and influential role in the scholarly publishing process. Their evaluations and feedback directly contribute to the quality, credibility and integrity of published research. As impartial experts, reviewers assess the scientific validity, originality and significance of submitted manuscripts and provide constructive criticism to help authors refine their work. Given their critical role in the peer review process, reviewers must adhere to high ethical standards, maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, and provide fair, unbiased, and timely evaluations.
A fundamental responsibility of reviewers is to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents and reviewers must treat them accordingly. They are prohibited from sharing, discussing, or disclosing any part of the manuscript or its contents with anyone outside the review process without the express permission of the editor. This confidentiality extends to all aspects of the manuscript, including the research data, proposed hypotheses, and reported results. It also applies to reviewers who have declined to review the manuscript but have already become familiar with its contents.
Reviewers must also respect the anonymity afforded by the double-blind peer review system. They should avoid making comments that might inadvertently reveal their identity or refer to their unpublished work. Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity is essential to preserve the integrity of the review process and to ensure that feedback is based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.
Reviewers must provide clear, detailed, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts. Their criticism should be based on objective analysis, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, without personal bias or unfounded criticism. The ideal purpose of the peer review process is to improve the quality of the manuscript, and reviewers play a crucial role in guiding authors towards this goal.
Timeliness is another important aspect of the reviewer’s responsibility. The publication of a manuscript depends on the peer review process, and any delays may impede the dissemination of important research. Reviewers should only accept review assignments if they can complete the task within the specified timeframe (three months). If unforeseen circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible, so that the editor can make an appropriate decision without significant delay.
Reviewers play a crucial role in identifying potential ethical issues in a manuscript. They must be vigilant in detecting signs of plagiarism, data fabrication and data falsification. If plagiarism is suspected, reviewers should notify the appropriate editor, providing specific examples of duplicated text and references to the original source. For issues related to data manipulation, reviewers should indicate this in their review so that the author can provide the necessary data. The reviewer may suggest that the editor seek an independent expert opinion.
Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest (COI) that may affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may be real or perceived. Even in the case of perceived COIs, such as personal relationships with authors, financial interests related to the research topic, or academic and professional competition, the reviewer must abstain from conducting the peer review.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest is essential to maintain the integrity of the peer review process. Once the information has been disclosed to the editor, the editor can decide whether to proceed with the reviewer’s assessment or to seek an alternative reviewer. In cases where reviewers are unsure about a conflict, they should discuss the matter with the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers are expected to behave professionally throughout the peer review process. This includes treating authors with respect and providing feedback in a constructive manner, free from derogatory or dismissive comments. The tone of the review should be neutral and focused on improving the manuscript rather than criticising the authors personally. Even if the manuscript is flawed or requires substantial revision, reviewers should strive to make suggestions that will help the authors improve the quality of their work. If they consider the manuscript unpublishable, this should be respectfully stated in the review. If the reviewer refuses to abide by the GSU-IF Code of Ethics, the responsible editor reserves the right to disregard the review and to seek another reviewer.
In addition to providing honest and unbiased evaluations, reviewers must respect the intellectual property rights of authors. They should not use ideas, data, or methods disclosed in the manuscript for their own research purposes before the manuscript is published. This would be a serious breach of ethical standards and would undermine the confidence placed in the peer review process.
The recommendations of the reviewers are an important part of the editorial decision-making process. Reviewers may suggest that the manuscript be accepted, revised or rejected based on their assessment of the quality and significance of the work. However, the final decision rests with the editor, who will consider the reviewer’s comments and decide on the next steps. Reviewers should provide a clear rationale for their recommendations, outlining the reasons for suggesting major revisions or rejection.
The Peer-review Policy can be found on the relevant page of the website.
Adherence to these guidelines ensures that all participants in the scholarly publishing process uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. By embracing transparency, managing conflicts of interest and fostering open dialogue, the academic community can ensure the credibility of scientific research and maintain public trust. Effective management of ethical issues, combined with a commitment to rigorous standards, is essential to advancing knowledge and contributing to the integrity of the scientific record.
The Editorial board of the Annual of Sofia University - Faculty of History announces the acceptance of academic articles, studies and reviews for its new volume, vol. 108. According to the adopted rules, which you can read in detail on the journal's website, the volume of manuscripts is unlimited. We ask that you strictly adhere to the requirements for citing and acknowledging the archival sources and literature used.
© Faculty of History | Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"
15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd.
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
e-ISSN: 3033-0262
ISSN: 0204-4005
GSU-IF | Citation Stylesheet (CSL)
