Journal of Comparative Studies

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Ilze KAČĀNE
Daugavpils University, Latvia
ORCID iD  
Scopus Author ID
WoS Researcher ID
e-mail: ilze.kacane@du.lv

CO-EDITOR
Aveen Mohammed HASAN
University of Duhok, Kurdistan-Region-Iraq
ORCID iD
e-mail: aveen.hasan@uoz.edu.krd
CV

MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Elisa BIZZOTTO
Iuav University of Venice, Italy

Jian-bang DENG
Tamkang University, Taiwan

Stefano-Maria EVANGELISTA
University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Sonia F. FARID
Cairo University, Egypt

Tatiana FILOSOFOVA
University of North Texas, USA

Rolf FÜLLMANN
University of Cologne, Germany

Maria José HERNÁNDEZ-SERRANO
University of Salamanca, Spain

Benedikts KALNAČS
University of Latvia, Latvia

Ervand MARGARYAN
Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University, Armenia

Kristina MULLAMAA
University of Tartu, Estonia

James M. NYCE
Ball State University, USA

Irēna SALENIECE
Daugavpils University, Latvia

Anita STAŠULĀNE
Daugavpils University, Latvia

Geoffrey SWAIN
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

Sylwia Janina WOJCIECHOWSKA
Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow, Poland

The ethics statements of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) CORE PRACTICES. All parties involved in the publishing (authors, reviewers, editors, publisher) respect and agree with these standards. 

1. Publication and Peer Review Process
“Journal of Comparative Studies” accepts original research work that has not been published before. No plagiarism, copyright infringement or presentation of fraudulent data is allowed. Each submitted manuscript is checked for plagiarism with WCopyfind program Under Gnu Public License. All submitted manuscripts should include a list of used references.

All manuscripts submitted to “Journal of Comparative Studies” are managed by the journal’s EDITORIAL BOARD. The Board shall seek to ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Two editors in cooperation with the Editorial Board are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal qualify for double-blind peer review.

Manuscripts together with the signed AUTHOR(S) GUARANTEE FORM are submitted to the Editorial Board via email to kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv. Manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editors. The co-editor checks the paper’s arrangement against the Guidelines for Authors to make sure it includes the required sections and is “spell checked” and “grammar checked”. If the manuscript is appropriate, the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF together with the co-editor evaluate its correspondence to the aims of the journal, originality and interest to the target audience. If the manuscript fails to meet the requirements, it is rejected without being reviewed further. If the manuscript has passed the initial check, the next stage – double blind peer-review process – is initiated. The EDITORS invite two external reviewers specializing in the theme of the manuscript – experts in the area – are invited to review it following the GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS. If necessary, the editors may seek an opinion from the third referee. The editors shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and follow the best practices in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. During the double-blind peer review process, the following aspects of each manuscript are evaluated: suitability for the journal, originality, research significance, methodology and conceptualization, presentation (manuscript structure and flow), readability, clarity, and language. The reviewers may accept the articles for publication without any corrections, with minor or major corrections, or reject it as failing to meet the requirements for a scientific article. A complete REVIEW FORM following the GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS are returned to the editors via e-mail (kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv) within one (1) month. If the reviews differ widely, a reviewer from the EDITORIAL BOARD is invited to provide an additional opinion before making any further decision. The editor-in-chief informs all authors of the submitted manuscript about the reviewers’ decision via e-mail. If the article requires corrections, the authors also receive anonymous reviewers’ constructive comments and are provided on average 2 months to revise their article and re-submit it for reconsideration. If major corrections were required, the revised article is forwarded to the reviewers by the editor repeatedly. In case of minor revisions, the editors check the re-submitted article and decide if it follows recommendations of the reviewers and the journal.

The prepared content of the issue is presented by the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF in the meeting of Daugavpils University Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences Scientific Council who recommends it for publishing preserving the right to express any constructive comments for the improvement of the overall quality of the journal. The editors in cooperation with authors may prepare final corrections after the scientific discussion at the workplace of the editor-in-chief. The final decision to publish the journal is made by the Science Council of Daugavpils University based on the recommendation of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences Scientific Council.

“The Journal of Comparative Studies” copyright belongs to Daugavpils University. Authors publish in “Journal of Comparative Studies” free of charge. All published articles are open access and after publication immediately available to anyone. The authors are encouraged to share the published works via scientific networks online.

2. Author Responsibilities
General Standards
Researchers should conduct their research – from research proposal to publication – in line with best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and/or national and international regulatory bodies. Authors 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. Knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Since the ethics statements of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) CORE PRACTICES  and the journal adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing the authors should follow the good practices of ethics and research integrity. The research must be conducted in line with the best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and national and international regulatory bodies. If authors research is based on the involvement of humans, they should ensure that it conforms with the Regulations of Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee of Daugavpils University, which had been elaborated based on the Law of Scientific Activity of the Republic of Latvia, the Ethical Code of Scientist in consent with Latvian Academy of Sciences and Latvian Science Council, the Code of Ethics of Daugavpils University employees and students, and Daugavpils University Satversme or similar national and institutional regulations.

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
The authors should ensure they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. 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.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

The “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process. To increase the chances of publication and move through peer review, production and publication smoothly, the authors must ensure the manuscript meets the following criteria:

• the paper fits the stated scope of the journal
• the paper is an original comparative study (not a compilation of formerly known publications)
• the paper contains sufficient new findings
• the paper’s title matches its content
• the keywords and the abstract are sufficiently informative
• the aim in the abstract and the introduction is specified
• the content of the paper justifies its length
• the research is rigorous as to methodology and conceptualisation
• the paper is well-organised
• the paper has conclusions that logically stem from the content
• the bibliography is sufficient and up-to-date
• the paper is written in good academic English
• the paper is formatted according to the requirements in the template and follows INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS.

Authorship of the Paper
All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. In case there are others who have participated in certain aspects of the paper (e.g., language editing or translation), they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section.

Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. All co-authors take collective responsibility for the work and are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work. Each author is obliged to participate in the peer review process and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. Authors should mention all sources of financial support for the work. Authors are obligated to notify the editor(s) of any conflict of interest.

Notification of Fundamental Errors
If authors have found a significant mistake or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obligated to inform the journal editors or publisher and cooperate with the editors to correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editors. If editors or publisher learn from the third party about the errors of the published work, the author will be required to correct these errors or provide evidence of the correctness of the errors to journal editors.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities
General Standards
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. It lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.  Reviewers are asked to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette. Reviewers are required to observe good reviewing etiquette.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Reviewers should first discuss all issues related to manuscripts with the editors in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit. Likewise, reviewers’ confidentiality is observed – the names of reviewers are never disclosed to authors. There is no direct communication between author(s) and reviewer(s) concerning a manuscript; editors fulfil the role of mediators.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.

Ethical Issues
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any such argument should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline participation in the review process. In cases when a reviewer suggests including citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase one’s citation count or enhance the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). The editors shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should consult the editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views with clear supporting arguments and inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the possible authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.

Since the “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process, reviewers are requested to consider the following criteria:

• Does the paper fit the stated scope of the journal?
• Is the paper an original comparative study (not a compilation of formerly known publications)?
• Does the paper contain sufficient new findings?
• Does the paper’s title match its content?
• Are the keywords and the abstract sufficiently informative?
• Is the aim in the abstract and the introduction specified?
• Does the content of the paper justify its length?
• Is the research rigorous as to methodology and conceptualisation?
• Is the paper well-organised?
• Does the paper have conclusions that logically stem from the text?
• Is the bibliography sufficient and up-to-date?
• Is the paper written in good academic English?
• Is the paper formatted according to the requirements in the template?

Each reviewer evaluates the following aspects of each manuscript: suitability for the journal, originality, research significance, methodology and conceptualization, presentation (manuscript structure and flow), readability, clarity, and language. To evaluate a manuscript submitted to the “Journal of Comparative Studies”, the  reviewer completes the REVIEW FORM following the general guidelines and returns it to the editors via e-mail (kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv)  within one (1) month. The reviewers may accept the articles for publication without any corrections, with minor or major revisions, or reject them as failing to meet the requirements for a scientific paper or because it is outside the journal’s scope. It is expected that reviewers express their views clearly with supporting arguments, identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author.

4. Editor Responsibilities
General Standards
Editors have responsibilities toward the authors, the peer reviewers, the journal readers and the scientific community. They guarantee the quality of the papers, relevance to the journal scope and the integrity of the academic record without regard to the author race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The editors must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. Editors do not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers and have a clear picture of a research funding sources.

Peer Review
Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions. The editors shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. The editors in cooperation with the Editorial Board shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias

The editor-in-chief has the rights to make the final decision to reject or accept an article by taking into account research importance, originality, clarity, relevance to publication scope, and ensure that all research material conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines and associate editors-in-chief recommendations.

Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions. They should have proof of misconduct and not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. Editors of “Journal of Comparative Studies” will consider retracting the publication due to: 1) unreliable (major errors, result falsification) published research, 2) plagiarism, 3) previously published results without citation, 4) data without authorization to publish, 5) copyright violation, 6) unethical research, 7) falsified peer review procedure, 8) conflict of interest. Publication retraction process should follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) RETRACTION GUIDELINES. Editors publish errata pages or make corrections when needed and act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.

Editorial board members will not use unpublished information of the submitted manuscripts for their own research without the author clear written acceptance. If editors find a conflict of interest in the manuscript, they will ask another editorial board member to handle the manuscript.

5. Duties of the Publisher
General Standards
The Publisher uses a number of safeguards against unethical behaviour. In cases of alleged or proven misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Publisher in cooperation with editors will take action to seek clarity on the situation take the necessary measures following COPE Guidance.

Corrections and Retractions
Should authors report errors in their published manuscript (both originating from the publication process or from faults in the study methods or results), an Erratum will be published in the Journal as soon as possible, citing the original article and reporting relevant amendments.

Appeals and Complaints
Complaints from any party must be addressed to the Publisher who will provide full information on the handling policy for appeals and complaints.

6. Access and Archiving
The publisher of the journal guarantees free access to anyone and permanent availability and preservation (in case if journal will no longer be issued) of the journal in a digital archive. Published material can be used for further references (reproducibility) only if the appropriate citation is provided (author(s) name(s), year, title of the article, journal title, volume, number, page number). Hard and digital copies of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are deposited in the National Library of Latvia, Daugavpils University library and other libraries in the country. Authors retain the right to self-archive the article.

General Standards
The authors of the “Journal of Comparative Studies” should follow the good practices of ethics and research integrity. The research must be conducted in line with the best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and national and international regulatory bodies. The authors should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented in the paper clearly. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.  

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
The authors should ensure they have written entirely original works. All articles submitted to the “Journal of Comparative Studies” are automatically screened for plagiarism. If they have used other scholars’ publications, ideas and words, they should ensure that they have been appropriately cited or quoted and that permission has been obtained where necessary. 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. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

Authorship
All those who have made substantial contributions to the research should be listed as co-authors. In addition, if others participated in certain aspects of conducting the study or shaping the paper (e.g. language editing or translation), they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section. The authors are expected to consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. All co-authors take collective responsibility for the work and are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work.

Submission
The “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process. To increase the chances of publication and move through peer review, production and publication smoothly, check the following criteria:

• Does the paper fit the stated scope of the journal?
• Is the paper an original comparative study (not a compilation of formerly known publications)?
• Does the paper contain sufficient new findings?
• Does the paper’s title match its content?
• Are the keywords and the abstract sufficiently informative?
• Is the aim in the abstract and the introduction specified?
• Does the content of the paper justify its length?
• Is the research rigorous as to methodology and conceptualisation?
• Is the paper well-organised?
• Does the paper have conclusions that logically stem from the content?
• Is the bibliography sufficient and up-to-date?
• Is the paper written in good academic English?
• Is the paper formatted according to the requirements in the template?

Two files of the manuscript should be submitted as Microsoft Word documents using a PAPER TEMPLATE and sent electronically to the editor-in-chief Ilze Kačāne (kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv):
1) paper with author(s) details (doc. title: SURNAME_NAME_FULL), 2) anonymised file for peer review (any information leading to the author(s) must be removed) (doc. title: Short_Paper_Title_ANONYM). The manuscript should be submitted together with the signed AUTHOR(S) GUARANTEE FORM. To help convey the importance of the research, add a cover letter addressed to the editors.

Instructions for Authors
The paper not exceeding 10,000 words should be an original study in English that is “spell checked” and “grammar checked”. American or British usage is accepted, but not a mixture of these.

Page 0 (see a formatted paper template)
1) TITLE
The title should be concise, specific and informative. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms.

2) AUTHOR’S NAME AND SURNAME

3) Author affiliation and contact information
Indicate again 1) the given name(s) and 2) the family name(s) of each author and check that all names are accurately spelt; indicate both a scientific degree (e.g. Dr. philol.) and a position (e.g. professor) immediately after the second mention of the first name and surname. Include the author’s affiliation (where the actual research work was done) following such order: Centre/Department, Institute/Faculty, University, Country. Be sure to add the e-mail address and ORCID iD. Ensure that the correct e-mail address is given and that contact details are kept up to date.

4) Short author’s biography
Short author’s biography not exceeding 300 words must be written in the third person using Present Simple, Past Simple or Present Perfect tense accordingly. It must begin with 1) a scientific degree followed by 2) the given name(s) and the family name and present the relevant current information (e.g. Dr. philol. Jānis Ozols is a senior researcher of the Centre of Cultural Research at Daugavpils University Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Latvia.). Include only relevant academic information and most significant achievements, avoiding personal information (e.g. non-academic activities) or subjective evaluation.

Page 1
1) ABSTRACT
An abstract, the same as a title, plays a vital role in the communication of the research. Without proper identification, papers may not be found and cited. The abstract should not exceed 350 words in English. It should briefly summarise the content, state the purpose and significance of the research, methods, the principal results and major conclusions. The abstract is often presented separately from the article; it must be able to stand alone. In-text citations and non-standard or uncommon abbreviations, symbols, footnotes/endnotes should be avoided.

2) Keywords:
Keywords are used for indexing and searching purposes. We suggest avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts. Maximum seven (7) keywords that do not replicate the words used in the title are written immediately after the abstract following the word Keywords and separated by commas.

Page 2 onwards
From the template Page 2 onwards, the paper must be organised into unnumbered sections – INTRODUCTION and other TITLED SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS within the body of the text, followed by CONCLUSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and REFERENCES.

In the INTRODUCTION, state the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results. This section should describe the aim and objectives of the research so that it may be understood and appreciated by experts from other research disciplines. A section on relevant theory should extend, not repeat, the background to the research already dealt with in the introduction; it should lay the foundation for further work. In the discussion and result sections, avoid extensive citations and provide a comparative analysis of the phenomena. The conclusions of the study should be presented in a CONCLUSION section. To facilitate compliance to funder’s requirements, state the funding source before References, e.g.:

This article is based on research that has been conducted within a framework of the international project “Cultural Heritage and Identities of Europe’s Future” (CHIEF), funded from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 770464.

All works cited and quoted in the text must be present in REFERENCES. References must be listed alphabetically and numbered. Titles of papers, books and journals in the list of references should be given in full. The use of the DOI is encouraged.

Formatting guidelines are provided in the PAPER TEMPLATE.

The references must be written only in Latin script (use the converter service <translit.cc> to convert vocabulary from the Cyrillic script to the Latin script):
Shahov, M. O. (2001). Staroobrjadcheskoe mirovozzrenie. Religiozno-filosofskie osnovy i social’naja pozicija. Moskva: RAGS.

For bibliographic references, generally, follow the format:
Last name, First Initial. (Year published). Title. City: Publisher.

e.g. Khrushchev, S., Benson, T. S., Jones, P. and Smirnov, I. (2012). Drawing the Curtain: The Cold War in Cartoons. London: Fontanka.

One author and first edition
Patterson, J. (2005). Maximum Ride. New York: Little, Brown.

One author and not the first edition
Dahl, R. (2004). Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 6th ed. New York: Knopf.

Books with two or more authors
Vermaat, M., Sebok, S., Freund, S., Campbell, J. and Frydenberg, M. (2014). Discovering Computers. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Book chapters
Cars, M. B. and Österman C. (2014). “Mind the Gap! Maritime Education for Gender-Equal Career Advancement.” In: Kitada, M., Williams, E. and Froholt, L. (eds.) Maritime Women: Global Leadership. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 143–153.

With original date
Beauvoir, S. de. (1949) 1993. The Second Sex. Trans. H. M. Parshley. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Journal articles
Church, T. A. and Katigbak, M. S. (2000). “Trait Psychology in the Philippines.” American Behavioral Scientist 44 (1), 73–94.

Dissertation
Rolin, K. H. (1996). Gender, Emotions, and Epistemic Values in High-Energy Physics: A Feminist Challenge for Scientific Methodology. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Film
Children of the Crocodile. (2001). Dir. M. Emerman. New York: Women Make Movies.

Internet sources
Savage, J. (2011). “Re-creating Mankind: The Philosophy and Actualization of the ‘New Soviet Man’.” In: The Eagle Feather. Available at: <https://eaglefeather.honors.unt.edu/2011/article/36#> (accessed September 2020).

In-text citations
In-text citations contain a fragment of the full citation. The author’s last name and the year of publication should be enclosed in parentheses, e.g. (Collins 2005). The specific page is inserted when directly quoting a source, e.g. (Collins 2005, 88); for dual authorship (Auerbach and Castronovo 2013, 2); for three and more authors (Smith et al. 2001); for two works by the same author in a single year (Lugones 1990a, 1990b); for two or more works by different authors (Rai 2000; Stimpson 2000; Brennan 2004), e.g.:

The role of political caricatures, defined as “a key form of visual propaganda”, has remained understudied within Soviet visual culture (Norris 2020, 520).

Tables and figures
Tables and figures must also be prepared on separate pages and submitted in original size and high–resolution (at least 300 dpi) in TIFF or JPG format. Their approximate position should be indicated in the paper. They should be numbered consecutively by Arabic numerals and titled.  The primary source of the table/figure and permission for its usage must be included in the paper. The author is requested to supply professionally drawn copies suitable for printing.

Notes
Titles of books, plays, journals, newspapers, films, plays (initial capital for each major word should be used), and quotations within the text are written in double curly quotation marks. Single curly quotation marks are used only for quotes within quotes.
An ellipsis within the continuous text should be indicated by […].
Dates and page numbers are separated by en dashes:1949–1985; 296–301.
Dates are written the following: January 2, 2017.
All numbers greater than ten (10) should be expressed in numerical form rather than in words. Numbers that begin a sentence are spelt out (Forty per cent).
Per cent is written as %, but it is spelt out at the beginning of a sentence.
Numbers of centuries are spelt out (twentieth century).
Italics in the article text is used only for culture-specific non-English words.
All non-English words in the body of the text or book titles and article titles should be accompanied by a translation in square brackets.
English spelling is recommended for foreign geographical names.
Footnotes are not encouraged; Notes (e.g. [1] [2]) are acceptable.

Proofs and Notification of Fundamental Errors
The typical review process takes about 60 days. If the paper is accepted for publishing “with corrections”, the author will receive reviews with recommendations. After resubmitting the article, a set of proofs for correcting errors will be sent to the author. No changes may be made in the text after final proofreading.
If a significant error or inaccuracy after the work has been published is discovered, the author is obliged to correct it, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.

General Standards
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions. Through the editorial communications with the author, it may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers are required to observe good reviewing etiquette. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline participation in the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review is treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information within the paper with anyone or contact the prospective authors directly without permission from the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript may not be used in a reviewer’s research. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Likewise, reviewers’ confidentiality is observed – the names of reviewers are never disclosed to authors. There is no direct communication between author(s) and reviewer(s) concerning a manuscript; editors fulfil the role of mediators.

Ethical Issues and Standards of Objectivity
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and bring these to the editor’s attention, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

The “Journal of Comparative Studies” is open to authors from any country, university, research institution or scientific school. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have; reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views with clear supporting arguments and inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the possible authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. In cases when a reviewer suggests including citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase one’s citation count or enhance the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers to determine whether bias is potential.

Guidelines for Reviewers
The “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are requested to consider the following criteria:

• Does the paper fit the stated scope of the journal?
• Is the paper an original comparative study (not a compilation of formerly known publications)?
• Does the paper contain sufficient new findings?
• Does the paper’s title match its content?
• Are the keywords and the abstract sufficiently informative?
• Is the aim in the abstract and the introduction specified?
• Does the content of the paper justify its length?
• Is the research rigorous as to methodology and conceptualisation?
• Is the paper well-organised?
• Does the paper have conclusions that logically stem from the text?
• Is the bibliography sufficient and up-to-date?
• Is the paper written in good academic English?
• Is the paper formatted according to the requirements in the template?

The paper not exceeding 10,000 words should be an original study in English that is “spell checked” and “grammar checked”. American or British usage is accepted, but not a mixture of these. It should be submitted in the paper template designed for the “Journal of Comparative Studies”.

Review Process
The manuscript and signed author(s) guarantee form are submitted to the editor via e-mail. The editors shall seek to ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Two editors in cooperation with the Editorial Board are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal qualify for double-blind peer review. If the paper fails to meet the basic requirements, it is rejected without being reviewed further. After the initial editorial review, the research article is reviewed by two external anonymous reviewers. If necessary, the editors may seek an opinion from the third referee. The editors shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and follow the best practices in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers.
To evaluate the papers submitted to the “Journal of Comparative Studies”, complete the REVIEW FORM following the general guidelines and return the editors via e-mail (kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv)  within one (1) month.

The reviewers may accept the articles for publication without any corrections, with minor or major revisions, or reject them as failing to meet the requirements for a scientific paper or because it is outside the journal’s scope. If the reviews differ widely, an additional referee provides an independent opinion before making any further decision. If significant corrections are required, the revised article is forwarded by the editor to the reviewers repeatedly. In minor revisions, the editors check the re-submitted article and decide if it follows the reviewers’ recommendations and journal requirements. The content of the journal’s latest issue is annually presented at the Daugavpils University Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences Scientific Council meeting by the editor-in-chief.  Constructive recommendations for improving the overall quality be suggested, or a recommendation for a publication is issued. Daugavpils University Science Council makes the final decision to publish the journal issue based on the Scientific Council of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences recommendation.

Open Access Policy
“Journal of Comparative Studies” adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
It operates a form of Open Access, which means that the content (both electronic and print) is available without charge to the user or his/her institution.

Licensing and Copyright Terms
Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Ethical Requirements
To reach the highest standards in publication ethics Guidance from the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed.
The “Journal of Comparative Studies” requires high standards of publication ethics. PUBLISHING ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT are guidelines for editors, reviewers, authors and the publisher prevent publication malpractice. In cases of unethical behaviour – alleged or proven misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism –, the publisher in cooperation with editors will take action to seek clarity on the situation and to amend the article. 

Promotion
“Journal of Comparative Studies” is indexed in EBSCOhost, European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS), Index Copernicus International Journals Master List, Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL).  Published issues and full papers are found on the journal webpage under the title List of Issues. Authors are encouraged to help promote the published research, update the researcher’s profiles in ORCID and academic networks (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar) as well as share the published paper, its data and the link to the journal webpage via social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn).

Archiving
Hard and digital copies of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are deposited in the National Library of Latvia, Daugavpils University library and other libraries in the country. Authors retain the right to self-archive the article.

“Journal of Comparative Studies” was first published in 2003 as “Komparatīvistikas almanahs” [Almanac of Comparative Studies] of the Institute of Comparative Studies (founded in 2003) of Daugavpils University (Latvia) with ISBN for each separate issue that mainly published collected articles in Latvian and Russian. In 2013, striving for internationalization, it began its transition to an internationally recognized journal and existed as a hybrid form till 2016 with the ISBN number for each separate issue and newly assigned ISSN 2255-9388, as well as with the titles in both languages (Latvian and English). During that time (2013–2016), it became a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that published articles in three languages (Latvian, Russian, English) with titles and abstracts in the English language. In 2017, a new stage in the establishing of the internationally recognized journal focusing on quality rather than quantity began that was also aimed at avoiding fragmentation: all high-quality and peer-reviewed articles and abstracts were published annually only in the English language and in addition to the ISSN 2255-9388 (print), ISSN 2592-8279 (online) was attributed, thus the journal became available electronically on the webpage. Other measures to improve the quality of the journal were taken: establishment of international highly recognized Editorial Board, an international team of two editors, improvement of the webpage, and detailed peer-review process.