About the Journal

Focus & Scope
Advanced Educational and Social Sciences Research Journal welcomes high quality contributions investigating topics in the fields of Communication Sciences, Economics, Psychology, Law, Education, Political Science, Sociology, Administrative Sciences, Social Work and many more, from theoretical, empirical and critical perspectives. The AESSJR mainly favors original and articulate research papers, but theory-focused articles, book reviews and other scientific contributions are also welcome.

Open Access Policy
we publishes fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the internet to all users immediately upon publication, without requiring a subscription to the journal. The journals are online first which allows authors, within a set deadline, to revise their posted article before printing. All the articles undergo blind and editorial peer-review and quality control.

The articles that are published in the journal are distributed under CC BY license. Users can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon our articles, even commercially, as long as they are credited for the original creation. 

Benefits of open access for authors, include:

  • Free access for all users worldwide;
  • Authors retain copyright to their work;
  • Increased visibility and readership worldwide.

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.

Peer Review Process
All contributions are subject to a blind peer review process. All received manuscripts will be sent to one or more referees. Authors will be notified whether their papers are accepted for publication or not. The authors whose contributions are accepted for publication will be sent the referee form in which is mentioned if revisions are required or if the paper is accepted as it stands. The authors requested to submit revisions for review will send the new versions of their articles to the editor (the deadline for submitting the revised papers will be mentioned by the editor in the correspondence with the author(s)). All submitted work must not have been published elsewhere or be currently under review for any other publication.

Criteria:

  • Relevance of theme/s & originality
  • Argumentative structure & clarity
  • Methodological integrity & use of data (if applicable)
  • Use of literature & theory
  • Language – quality of communication
  • The reviewers will provide a score for each criterion, an overall recommendation, and comments.
  • Advanced Educational and Social Sciences Research Journal subscribes to the principles of ethical publishing suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [http://publicationethics.org]. We suggest that all prospective Authors and Reviewers read the COPE recommendations before submitting or reviewing manuscripts. To highlight those ethical commitments we consider basic, we present in the following a nonexclusive set of stringent rules guiding the submission, selection, evaluation, feedback, and publication processes at the AESSRJ.
  • Authors who submit an article to the AESSRJ thereby commit themselves to their being the sole owners and originators of the manuscript. Previously published (entirely or partially) manuscripts will not be accepted. Plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data, and/or the omission of significant material will lead to the rejection of the manuscript and the termination of all relations with the author(s). Authors are solely responsible for all statements, citations and materials included in the manuscripts they submit to the AESSRJ.
  • All papers submitted to the AESSRJ undergo a thorough, objective and fair peer review process. Reviewers should evaluate all manuscripts professionally, objectively and fairly, without allowing for any kind of interfering from personal biases or interests in their comments and/or recommendations. Evaluators should deliver their reviews promptly, and they should ensure the confidentiality of the peer review process.
  • Editors manage the publication and peer-review processes in a confidential, unbiased and professional manner. They have editorial independence; the selection and final decision for the publication of manuscripts is based only on the scholarly merits of the materials. Responsibility for acceptance and rejection of all papers submitted rests with the Editors; their decisions, however, should be informed by feedback from Reviewers. Exceptionally, Editors may reject manuscripts that they consider inappropriate given RJCPR’s (and general academic) standards without any further review process.
  • 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.
  • Duties of Editors
  • Fair play and editorial independence
  • Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 
  • Confidentiality
  • Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest
  • Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
  • Publication decisions
  • The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  • Involvement and cooperation in investigations
  • Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Editors follow the COPE Flowchartswhen dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
  • Duties of Reviewers
  • Contribution to editorial decisions
  • Peer review assists editors 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.
  • Promptness
  • Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • Confidentiality
  • Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
  • Standards of objectivity
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
  • Acknowledgement of sources
  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest
  • Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
  • Duties of Authors
  • Reporting standards
  • Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial ‘opinion’ or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  • Data access and retention
  • Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
  • Originality and plagiarism
  • Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. 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 publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  • We expect our authors to comply with best practice in publication ethics as well as in quality of their articles. Withdraw is not possible after volume publishing excepting circumstances: plagiarism, data fabrication or scientific misconduct. In this case paper will be replaced with a pdf stating name of paper, authors, coauthors, reason of withdraw. Charges for withdraw are established by the production manager and approval will be done by the volume editor/guest editor.
  • Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
  • Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
  • The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that 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. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. 
  • Authorship of the manuscript
  • Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
  • If the author decided to withdraw the article, AESSRJ will not refund the publication fee. 
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest
  • Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
  • Acknowledgement of sources
  • Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
  • Hazards and human or animal subjects
  • If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
  • Peer review
  • Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
  • Fundamental errors in published works
  • When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
  • Duties of the Publisher
  • Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
  • In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work.  The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
  • Open Access to journal content
  • Open access is the practice of providing unrestricted access to peer-reviewed academic journal articles via the internet. All original research papers published by Technium are available freely and permanently accessible online immediately after publication. Readers are free to copy and distribute the contribution under creative commons attribution-non commercial licence. Authors can benefit from the open access publication model a lot from the following aspects:
    High Availability and High Visibility-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions.
    ● Rigorous peer review of research papers—-Fast, high-quality single blind peer review.
    ● Faster publication with less cost—-Papers published on the internet without any subscription charge.
    ● Higher Citation– open access publications are more frequently cited.