About the Journal

1822-8402 (Print) / 2335-8831 (Online)

Focus and Scope

We intend to encourage scientists to publish their applied and theoretical research on the Aspects of Social Evolution of Europe, Economics of European Union, Managerial Aspects of European Integration, European Union Policies, European Union Law and will pay a special attention to the joint research in these areas.

Charges, Article processing charges

There are no fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal.

Publication Standards

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement Requirements

(based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

European Integration Studies is a double peer-reviewed research journal published by Kaunas University of Technology. The journal is committed to ensuring ethics in the publication and quality of articles. Conformance to standards of ethical behaviour is therefore expected of all parties involved: Editors, Reviewers, and the Authors.

Editors

  • Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit.
  • Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal.
  • The editor ensures that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
  • The editor ensures that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions.
  • The editor ensures that the journal employs the double-blind peer review: reviewers are not aware of the identity of the authors, and authors are unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least two or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
  • Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers

  • Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
  • The reviewers should comment on the originality of submissions and should be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
  • Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  • The reviewers assist the editors in taking the decision of publishing a submitted manuscript. By formulating suggestions to the authors, the reviewers can contribute to the improvement of submitted works.

Authors

  • The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, not published before and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged.
  • Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Peer Review Process of Scientific Articles

  1. All scientific articles are submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal via the Open Journal System (OJS). A manuscript of the scientific article is submitted with the Author(s) guarantee concerning the work presented for publication in the form approved by the order of the Rector of the University.
  2. The submitted articles are verified using the “CrossCheck” similarity check system of the organisation “CrossRef”. If plagiarism is detected, the editorial board of the scientific journal has the right to take action, including but not limited to, announcement of the correction of the error(s); rejection of the submitted scientific article; notification of the heads of the departments of the institutions of the authors and/or respective academic institutions or societies.
  3. The editor in chief, the executive editor or the editorial board of the scientific journal perform an initial screening of scientific articles and reject the scientific articles non-compliant with the requirements of the scientific journal (non-compliance with the priorities of the scientific journal, lack of originality or scientific character, etc.). Only the scientific articles that have passed the initial screening are submitted for peer review. The initial screening is conducted and reviewers are appointed within 3–6 weeks after the receipt of the manuscript of the scientific article.
  4. After passing the initial screening, the scientific article submitted to the scientific journal is peer-reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are recognised researchers in the science field appointed by the editor in chief, the executive editor or the editorial board. The editorial board may request the authors to propose competent researchers to be included in the list of potential reviewers. At least one appointed reviewer is from a country other than the authors of the submitted article. In exceptional cases, with regards to the specifics of the humanities, both appointed reviewers may be from the country of the authors of the submitted article but a different institution. The reviewers are appointed in confidentiality without the knowledge of the authors. If the submitted scientific article includes interdisciplinary problems, the reviews have to be provided by the researchers of different science fields or areas. The reviews have to be prepared within 3 months from the date of the submission of the scientific article to the reviewer.
  5. It is recommended that the members of the editorial board serve as reviewers of no more than one-third of the peer-reviewed scientific articles per year.
  6. It is recommended for the members of the editorial board not to publish scientific articles as the lead co-authors in the scientific journal where they serve as members of the editorial board.
  7. After the peer review, a scientific article may be accepted, returned to the authors for corrections or rejected based on the conclusions of the reviewers. The request to correct the scientific article does not guarantee that the corrected article will be accepted. The time allocated for the correction of the scientific article may vary from 2 weeks to 2 months from the date the comments are sent to the authors, depending on the number of the comments.
  8. The authors have to correct the scientific article following the comments specified in the reviews or give a reasoned explanation of why they refuse to consider certain comments. The corrected scientific articles are submitted via the OJS including a detailed written explanation of the corrections made. The corrections are highlighted in the text in another colour.
  9. If a second round of review is required after the corrections by the authors, the reviewers assess the corrections of the scientific article and provide the editorial board with their conclusions on whether the scientific article has been improved following the specified comments.
  10. If the opinions of the reviewers differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be appointed. The same requirements are applied to the additional reviewer and the main reviewers.
  11. The final decision regarding the publication of the scientific article or appointment of the additional reviewer is made by the editor in chief, the executive editor or the editorial board taking into consideration the comments and conclusions of the reviewers, the corrections by the authors and/or the conclusions of the second round review regarding the corrected article. This decision is final and not subject to further discussions or communication.
  12. The review form, approved by consensus of the editorial board of the journal, has to be compliant with the peer review practice. A mandatory review by the reviewer consists of the following recommended components:
  13. The title of the scientific article;
  14. The date of the submission for review;
  15. The assessment of the scientific article:
  16. Compliance with the topic of the scientific journal;
  17. Scientific level, scientific novelty and originality, relevance and importance of the topic;
  18. Methodological validity, solutions for scientific uncertainty;
  19. Presentation: the compliance of the title and summary with the content of the article; the assessment of the content of the article; the connection between the conclusions and the title of the article, the formulated objectives, the provided and substantiated research results; the correctness of citation; the clarity and level of the language;
  20. The part of the review conclusions submitted to the authors and the editorial board:
  21. The conclusion of the reviewer: accept in full, accept after the corrections requiring no reviewer’s follow-up; return for corrections requiring a second round of review; return for corrections requiring editor’s in chief follow-up; reject (indicating the reasons for rejection);
  22. The reviewer’s remarks or comments to the authors;
  23. The part of the review conclusions submitted only to the editorial board:
  24. The reviewer’s comments to the editorial board;
  25. The reviewer’s institution, the reviewer’s scientific degree and position at the represented institution (if these data are not specified in the reviewer’s OJS account), the reviewer’s signature. The reviewer’s confirmation of the review in the OJS is equivalent to their electronic signature on the document and has the same legal value as a signature in written documents.
  26. A process flow diagram “Peer Review a Scientific Article Published in the Scientific Journal of Kaunas University of Technology” is prepared according to Chapter II of the Guidelines and provided in the Appendix to the Guidelines.

Scientific journal is published once a year (in October).

Publication Frequency

Scientific journal is published once a year (in October).

Open Access Policy

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES journal is published open access under the CC-BY 4.0 licence which allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles. The journal provides open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Licence

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES journal is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.

Current copyright policy began in 2007 (Issue No1).

Journal History

Since 2002, the Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities (former Institute of Europe) (Kaunas University of Technology) prepares and publishes scientific works under the theme of European Integration. Starting 2007 year the journal has got an ISSN code. At the present, the annual scientific journal European Integration Studies (ISSN 1822-8402) is published once a year (in October).

All papers to be published in “EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES” are peer-reviewed by two appointed external experts. The journal is published one time a year, ( October).

The papers published in “EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES” are abstracted by International Databases:

  • Web of Science: Emerging Sources Citation Index
  • EBSCO BSP,
  • EBSCO CEEAS
  • Index Copernicus
  • CEEOL
  • BASE
  • MIAR
  • Lituanistika
  • DOAJ