About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Ohm publishes original Works of investigation to extend, to penetrate and to spread the scientific knowledge in Modern History. It attends to all his thematic fields of study and is directed for investigators, professional historians, students and for all people been interested in the knowledge of the modern epoch. In a special way, the magazine tries to give the major possible diffusion to all those investigations related to the modern history of Galicia.
About the peer evaluation and editing process
Papers received in the editorial office will be examined by a member of the Editorial Committee, who will determine whether the work fits thematically and formally in the journal, and whether it complies with the requirements of the journal's editorial guidelines. If this is not the case, the paper will be returned to the authors within five weeks, explaining the reasons for its rejection and the possibilities of correcting the original for resubmission.
Papers submitted to Ohm must be original, not edited or submitted for consideration for publication elsewhere. They will be sent for confidential evaluation to two reviewers from outside the editorial team, selected on the basis of their research background and knowledge of the subject matter. The anonymity of authors and reviewers will be preserved throughout the process.
Manuscripts will be reviewed within a period of sixteen weeks by two anonymous peers, who will carry out their evaluation on the form that the journal makes available online, following the criteria of the discipline. The review will be based on the originality and scientific relevance of the contribution; the knowledge, currency and originality of the methodology used; the handling of the information contained in the sources used; the currency and mastery of the bibliographical content used by the author of the work; and the formal presentation (writing, punctuation...) of the text. Each of the evaluators will draw up a separate reasoned report, in which, in accordance with the criteria set out above, they will inform the editors of the reasons for the acceptance, revision or rejection of the text submitted for their consideration.
For the paper to be published, the reports of both referees must be positive and their comments must be linked to their decision as to whether or not the paper should be published, stating whether it should be published with modifications, with minor modifications, with major modifications or rejected. If only one of the referees is in favour of publication, the paper will be sent to a third referee whose opinion will be final.
Accepted papers must be modified according to the reviewers' suggestions and adapted by the author to Ohm's editorial and stylistic standards. The new version must be sent to the Editorial Office as soon as possible (always within one month), highlighting the changes made or explaining in a separate document why the reviewer's comments have not been followed. The new version and the referenced document could be sent back to the reviewers, who should issue a report on the appropriateness of its publication within three weeks. On the other hand, if the changes requested were minor, the editors could carry out this revision, the result of which would be communicated to the author within three weeks.
If the manuscript is not accepted for publication, it will be returned to the author, together with the opinions issued by the reviewers. If necessary, the editors may send a single report based on those issued by the reviewers, explaining the reasons for non-acceptance.
Throughout this editorial process, the journal is grateful for the help of the specialists who collaborate in the editing and external review of the papers. Ohm will periodically publish a list of the reviewers who contributed to the editing of the last issues published:
Publication Frequency
Annual
Open Access Policy
Ohm has open access to its full-text content.
There are no processing charges.
Editing formats
The articles published in the journal are edited in the following formats: PDF, XML and HTML.
Indexed/abstracted in
Disclaimer and exclusion of liability
Ohm is not responsible for the contents of any article, and the fact of its sponsoring the spreading of an article does not necessarily entail its agreement on the theses exposed in the article. The editor, in any case, is free of any responsibility resulting from the author’s eventual violation of intellectual property rights.
Review form
Ethical Guidelines
The publication of scientific articles involves several actors, including the publisher, the editors in chief, the reviewers and the authors. It is expected that each of these agents have an ethical behaviour referred to ethical principles partially inspired in those provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines.
Publisher:
The publisher provides technical assistance and support to the journal editors in the use of the web platform, and maintains the software updated and able to facilitate the submission, evaluation and publication process of scientific works. The publisher also collaborates with the editors in chief indexing the papers, providing information about the databases requirements and, so, contributing to the Journal positioning in the usual rankings. Broadly, the publisher should helps to increase the editorial quality of the Journal, contributing to its visibility, internationalization and impact.
Editors in chief:
Editors in chief ensures that manuscripts submitted are evaluated based exclusively on its intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, political affiliation or philosophical trend of the authors. They guarantee the confidentiality of the work, not revealing the identity of the authors to other agents except to those authorized by the publisher, the potential reviewers, the actual reviewers or the editorial board of the journal. Editors can refuse a job if it not satisfy the formal requirements or approach a subject not belonging to the scope of the journal. Editors communicate within the deadlines, once they see the referees and heard the editorial board, the acceptance or rejection of the submitted papers.
Reviewers:
Reviewers should refuse to refer a paper if they do not feel qualified in the subject approached or if they can not take the evaluation within the deadline suggested by the Journal. The referee report should be objective and written in a clearly and reasoned style. Reviewers should avoid ad hominem references and offensive or demeaning comments; their suggestions should focus mainly on the improvement work. Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents, and their contents is not used in their own works. Reviewers should reject referee papers if they show a conflict of interest, for example a past or present relationship with the paper's authors or the institutions they depend.
Authors:
Authors should submit papers containing original research on a clearly identifiable and not previously published subject. They should not send articles including a substantial part of others papers or books already published. Papers should be written so that they can be understood or replicated by reviewers. If ideas of others are used, they should be clearly referenced; plagiarism is an unacceptable behaviour and its detection involves cancel the submission or remove it from the platform if it was already published. In case of co-authorship, all people that significantly contribute to the paper are considered its author; each author should be able to identify which parts of the work are own and which parts are from others authors, and must maintain confidentiality of the all contents until the article is published. Simultaneous paper sending to other Journals is a sufficient condition for archiving it. If in the process of the paper edition the authors find errors or improprieties, they should communicate to the editors in chief as soon as possible and cooperate in their correction. Authors should communicate the potential conflict of interest between the paper findings and the financial support.
These guidelines are consistent with the ethical code of the University of Santiago de Compostela, institution to which this Journal belongs.
https://www.usc.es/gl/goberno/valedor/codigoetico/CodigoEtico.html
Inclusive language
Ohm magazine subscribes to the goal of combating gender bias and promoting equality. It recommends that authors and reviewers employ expressive strategies that avoid discrimination on the basis of sex, social gender or gender identity. This objective should be compatible with the principles of economy and communicative flexibility set out in reports of other institutions, such as that of the RAE. Moreover, it must be harmonised with other discursive and pragmatic fundamentals, such as those referring to the appropriateness and effectiveness of the solutions adopted.
Digital preservation policy
This journal develops various processes in order to preserve permanent access to digital objects hosted on its own servers:
- Backups.
- Monitoring of the technological environment to foresee possible migrations of obsolete formats or software.
- Digital preservation metadata.
- Use of DOI.
In addition, the files published online will be in reproducible formats and the journal will ensure that they reach the collaborating libraries in order to guarantee their permanence, conservation and, if necessary, possible restoration.
About the self-archive
Once the paper has been accepted, Ohm authors may upload the pre-print to institutional repositories, blogs or personal and results dissemination websites. The document released in this way must state that it is the original submitted to the journal, prior to peer review and
without incorporating the modifications derived from the reviewers' comments. Likewise, it must state that publication is imminent in the corresponding issue of the journal, so that once published in the journal, the authors must replace the pre-print with the article published in Ohm in an institutional or personal repository.
Anti-plagiarism Policy
This journal is a member of Similarity Check, a multi-publisher initiative started by Crossref to screen published and submitted content for originality.
Through Similarity Check, we use the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted or published manuscripts.
By depositing all of our content in the Similarity Check database we allow other Similarity Check members to screen their submissions against our published articles.
Papers in which plagiarism is found to exist will not be edited by the journal, and in those where plagiarism is discovered after publication, Ohm will publicise this to its readers, making it known that the text published on-line is a fraud on the scientific community.
Open data policy
The editors encourage authors to share their raw and processed data, together with their analysis procedures, through open data repositories. The transparency and reproducibility of research contributes to the improvement and advancement of scientific knowledge.
Interoperability protocols
Ohm provides an interface OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative – Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) that allows other websites and information services to harvest the published content metadata.
Specifications:
OAI-PMH Protocol Version 2.0
Dublin Core Metadata 1.1
URL for harvesters:
https://revistas.usc.gal/index.php/ohm/oai
Sponsors
Área de Historia Moderna da USC
Service of Publications and Scientific Exchange
University of Santiago de Compostela
Journal History
Magazine founded in 1992 with the initial aim of announce the investigations realized on the Modern History of Galicia. In his second stage, inaugurated from the year 2005, there took place a reformulation of the original aims, looking for his opening to the new orientations of the modernist investigations not only in Spain but also in Europe. A satisfactory of work, which has turned OHM into one of the referenced magazines of Modern History in the peninsula frame (RESH).