Proceedings of the Centre for Economic History Research
SUBMISSIONS GUIDELINES for Contributions to the Proceedings of the Centre for Economic History Research
The Annual of CEHR accepts articles in Bulgarian, English, French, German and Russian. Please take into consideration the following requirements when submitting your text:
● The article’s title should be written in the original language of the text and should be translated in English;
● The author’s name should be written in the original language of the text and should be translated in English;
● The article should include abstract in English (300-500 words);
• The abstract should present briefly and clearly the subject and object of research, research methods and results (conclusions and summaries);
● Key words in English should be added after the abstract;
● The JEL classification should be indicated.For details see here;
● If there are pictures, charts, diagrams, schemes, etc., they should be placed in their exact place of the text with consecutive numbers and annotations;
● The archival sources should be cited in footnotes;
● The Harvard short reference system should be used when citing information sources (see here);
● The Streamlined System for transliteration should be used when citing in Cyrillic (see here);
● The titles of the cited literature in Cyrillic should be translated in English and after than should be writtenin the original between square brackets.
Please follow examples when citing in the text: see here
Volume VI ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Content Authors SECTION I.REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ASPECTS Author: Gergana GEORGIEVA, Nikolay TODOROV. Abstract: The place and role of merchants in the Ottoman economic system is a topic of...read more
Volume V MARKETS, SOCIETY, POWER Content Authors SECTION I.REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ASPECTS Author: Andreas LYBERATOS Abstract: The paper explores the role of intermediaries and market microstructures in Black Sea Grain Trade through the example of the case of Varna...read more
Volume IV CRISES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE AGES Content Authors SECTION I.REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ASPECTS Author: Krasimira Mutafova Abstract: As part of the instructions of the Ottoman authority the Patriarchy of Constantinople and the churches in the...read more
VOLUME IITHE DIVERSITY OF BULGARIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE AGESContentAuthor: Pencho Penchev Abstract: The paper discusses the main characteristic features of economic history. The author makes an attempt to highlight the meaning and social importance of...read more
VOLUME I THE URBAN ECONOMY IN THE BULGARIAN LAND TROUGH THE AGES Author: Marko Dimitrov Abstract: In this article the author makes an attempt, based on the available scientific literature to determine more precisely the content of such concepts as "Industry",...read more
VOLUME III INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE BULGARIAN LANDS THROUGH THE AGES ContentSECTION 1. REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ASPECTSAuthor: Ivan Roussev Abstract: The paper presents the main commercial law institutes and their manifestation on the Bulgarian market...read more
Aims and Scope
Proceedings of the Centre for Economic History Research is published by the Centre of Economic History Research (CEHR). CEHR is a non-profit organization registered in Sofia City Court on December 18, 2015. Its members are predominantly academics unified by their interest in Bulgarian and Balkan Economic History.
The editors of the Proceedings of the Centre for Economic History Research are primarily interested in publishing original research papers exploring the economic past of the Balkan region. There are no limitations to the chronological scope of the contributions and the methodology used. The Proceedings of the Centre for Economic History Research also places a high priority on contributions that examine the history of economic thought in the Balkans as well as the history of local entrepreneurship, healthcare, energy, telecommunications, transportation, and education.
|1. Duties of Authors
Authors reporting original research results should present a correct account of the work done, along with a fair discussion of its significance. Data sources should be presented precisely.
An article should provide sufficient information and references to allow others to replicate the work.
|Data Access and Retention||Authors should be able to provide the raw data related to an article for editorial review if asked. Authors also should be ready to provide public access to this data. They should keep the data for a reasonable time span after the publication of the article.|
|Originality and Plagiarism||
Authors should issue a statement that their work is originally written. If the work and/or words of others have been used, this fact has to be appropriately presented (i.e. cited or quoted).
Every manuscript received will be checked for plagiarism.
No part of manuscript should have plagiarized content.
On Detection of Plagiarism following actions can be taken:
|Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication||Authors must not suggest for publishing manuscripts containing basically the same research output which is submitted to one or more other journals for primary publication. A basic principle is that submitting concurrently the same paper to more than one publisher represents unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.|
|Acknowledgement of Sources||Proper acknowledgment of the work of other authors must always be provided. Authors should cite those publications which had a substantial impact in the scientific area of the manuscript.|
|Authorship of the Paper||Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the content of the manuscript – all those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for the list of co-authors which should include only actual contributors.|
|Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest||All authors should disclose any financial or other possible conflict of interest that might be considered as influencing the results or their interpretation.|
|Errors in already published works||If any author discovers a substantial error or imprecision in a published work, it is her/his responsibility to promptly notify the Editorial Board and cooperate with the editor to withdraw or correct the paper.|
|2. Duties of Editors
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the decision which of the submitted articles should be published.
The Editor-in-Chief is guided by the policies of the Editorial Board for compliance with legal requirements regarding offensive statements, copyright violations, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or with reviewers for finalizing the decision.
|Fair play||Members of the Editorial Board should evaluate manuscripts for their scientific content disregarding any race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.|
Members of the Editorial Board should not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and representatives of the publisher.
The Editorial Board must guarantee the double-blind peer review process in which both authors and referees are anonymous.
|Disclosure and conflicts of interest||Members of the Editorial Board must not disclose the content of any unpublished materials from a submitted manuscript or use it for their own research without the written consent of the authors.|
|3. Duties of Reviewers
|Contribution to Editorial Decisions||Reviewers contribute to the editorial decision making process regarding submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should assist the authors in refining their manuscripts through editorial communications.|
|Promptness||A reviewer who considers her/himself unqualified to review the suggested research output or finds out that the manuscripts cannot be reviewed promptly should notify the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the review process.|
|Confidentiality||Reviewers must treat any manuscript received for review as a confidential document. Reviewers must not expose to or discussed with any other party the content of the manuscript, unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief and the authors.|
|Standards of Objectivity||РReviewers should act according to the objectivity premise. Reviewers should communicate their opinion clearly on the basis of supporting arguments.|
|Acknowledgement of Sources||Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial similarity or overlap between a submitted manuscript and any other published work which they are personally acquainted. Reviewers are also expected to identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.|
|Disclosure and Conflict of Interest||Reviewers must keep confidential and must not use for personal benefit any information or ideas obtained during the peer review of a submitted manuscript. Reviewers should reject to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other links which they may have with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated to the research work.|
|4. Duties of the Publisher
|Independence of editorial decisions||
The publisher shall not be involved in decisions made by the Editorial Board about the publication of individual articles.
The publisher is committed to ensure that advertising, reprint or other commercial activity will have no impact on editorial decisions.
|Networking with other publishers||The publisher shall assist the Editorial Board in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to the Board and/or reviewers.|
|Alignment to international standards||The publishers shall cooperate to other renowned publishers and industry associations in the process of establishing standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions.|
Peer review of Centre of Economic History Research in general follows four-stage procedure.
The first stage begins with submitting your article to a journal. At this first stage, the journal editor will decide if it’s suitable for the journal, asking questions such as:
A) Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines?
B) Is this the right journal for this article?
C) Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful?
The editor might reject the article immediately, but otherwise it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.
Stage two: First round of peer review
The editor-in-chief finds and contacts between 2 and 5 researchers/academics who are experts in your field. It is important for authors to know that the reviewers are not from your country/university or institution. The main source of appropriate independent reviewers is the system ScholarOne. The reviewers will be asked to read your article, to asses it, and advise the editor-in-chief whether to publish your paper in that journal.
They would give an opinion whether:
A) your work is original or new;
B) your methodology is appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you’ve done;
C) you’ve presented your results clearly and appropriately;
D) your conclusions are reliable and significant;
E) the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.
You’ll then be given feedback about your article, telling you if any changes need to be made before it can be published. Please note the final editorial decision on a paper and the choice of who to invite to review is always at the editor’s discretion. If the paper does not maintain sufficiently high academic standards, it may be rejected at this point.
Stage three: Revise and resubmit
You can then amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made.
If you decide you don’t want to accept all the reviewers’ comments, you can include a brief explanation of why you don’t believe they are applicable with your resubmitted article. The editor can then make an assessment, and include your explanation when the amended article is sent back to the reviewers.
Stage four: Accepted
If the paper finally meets the editorial and reviewers standards it is accepted for publication. And that’s it, you’ve made it through peer review.
Note: It might take 1-12 months between the acceptance and publication of the paper.
Prof. Ivan ROUSSEV, D.Sc. – University of Economics – Varna
Prof. Pencho PENCHEV, D.Sc. – University of National and World Economy – Sofia
Prof. Milko PALANGURSKI, D.Sc. – “St Cyril and St Methodius” University of VelikoTarnovo
Assoc. Prof. Margarita MARINOVA, PhD – International Business School – Botevgrad
Assoc. Prof. Marco DIMITROV, PhD – University of National and World Economy – Sofia
Assoc. Prof. Gergana GEORGIEVA, PhD – “St Cyril and St Methodius” University of VelikoTarnovo
Prof. Nikolay NENOVSKY, D.Sc. – University of National and World Economy – Sofia;
CRIISEA, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, FRANCE
Prof. Dr. AyşeKAYAPINAR – Turkish National Defense University, Ankara, TURKEY
Prof. Dr. LeventKAYAPINAR – University of Ankara, TURKEY
Dr. Andreas LYBERATOS – Panteion University of Social & Political Sciences – Athens;
Institute for Mediterranean Studies – Rethymno, GREECE
Submit a Paper
All the papers must be submitted via this email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please, use the form below to send your papers.