About the Journal

Focus and scope

The biannual journal erph was founded with the aim of establishing itself as a benchmark for protection of historical heritage, and as such its objectives and structure reflect the requirements and philosophy of the protection process itself. The Journal encompasses protection of historical heritage as a whole at a national and international level (legislation, administration, restoration, dissemination, etc.), as opposed to the fragmentary or partial coverage offered by other periodic publications in this field.

This holistic and integrated approach is also reflected in its geographic scope. The Journal embraces the entire Spanish territory as well as studies at an international level, based on an understanding that historical heritage is grounded on a concept of general interest which should not be interpreted narrowly within the scope of the inevitable administrative and jurisdictional limits. Given that heritage protection is a matter of social interest, its manifestation through citizen initiatives also occupies a relevant role in the publication, thereby contributing to the dynamic social construction of historical heritage.

The Journal includes studies and experiences covering the full spectrum of heritage protection actions from both a current and historical perspective. It considers historical heritage as a diachronous and constantly evolving concept, drawing on the contributions of each period to generate a dynamic historical construction with a social relevance that urges its future continuation. We therefore pay close attention to changes, trends and new developments in all areas of heritage protection.

One of the hallmarks of erph is its electronic format, which we seek to exploit fully through features such as content renewal typical of other scientific publications and use of new technologies to provide links of all kinds in articles, and also in terms of accessibility and visibility.

The aim of all the above is to achieve the maximum possible impact, the greatest possible number of readers and the widest possible scientific recognition for the publications by our authors.

Section policies

Concept_ Studies of historical heritage, whether from a current or historical perspective (values, meanings, types of cultural heritage, etc.) with a special focus on new heritage trends.

Legislation_ Analysis of the legal regime for historical heritage at an international, national, regional and local level. Comparative studies and legal approaches to new forms of heritage are also of particular interest to erph.

Management_ Analysis of public and private management and administration of cultural property, including agencies and institutions, strategic planning, programmes and actions. The different aspects of cultural management are also considered.

Intervention_ Analysis of the different types of practical intervention in the field of cultural property (restoration, conservation, rehabilitation, etc.) and from all possible perspectives (theoretical and methodological analysis, experiences, history of restoration, etc.).

Dissemination_ Analysis of the different actions relating to transmission of cultural heritage to citizens (dissemination, interpretation, mediation, etc.), with a special focus on awareness-raising actions.

Heritage and development_ General research and presentation of case studies relating to the consideration of historical heritage as a development factor, particularly through cultural tourism and other means of exploiting its economic dimension.

Citizen initiatives_ Recognition and dissemination of initiatives involving citizen movements to safeguard historical heritage: associations, actions sponsored by citizen platforms, etc.

General studies_ Studies offering a general or interrelated view of the different dimensions of protection or which address important areas not covered by other sections.

Institutions_ Studies of the different national, regional and international historical heritage institutions: museums, archives, libraries, cultural sites, archaeological sites, etc.

Reviews_ Reviews of relevant publications (where possible in the year of their publication) relating to the content of the Journal.

Peer review process

In order to guarantee the quality, relevance and importance of the articles published, the manuscripts received undergo a double-blind scientific peer review process by external reviewers as outlined below:

_ The manuscripts go through an initial review process by the Editorial Board, which may directly reject any manuscripts that do not comply with the Journal’s editorial policies or rules or the minimum standards of development, quality or relevance for the submission of contributions. In exceptional cases, the authors may be required to make certain amendments in order to continue in the selection process.

_ Once the article has been accepted for evaluation, the authors are notified and it is then reviewed using a double-blind peer review system involving external reviewers. The paper is sent anonymously to two external experts of renowned prestige in the field, who issue a brief in accordance with a template which includes a list of instructions to be applied depending on the nature of the paper (Study or Experience).

_ The peer review must be objective and comply with our ethics and malpractice statement. The reviewers may not have any conflict of interest with the content of the articles and will note the presence of material already published that has not been properly cited. Reviewed articles will be kept strictly confidential until their publication.

_ The Journal will keep a record of all the manuscripts received, indicating whether they have been accepted or rejected. Due to reasons of confidentiality, this record will not be public, although it will be available upon request by any researcher or institution.

_ The Journal will publish the list of external reviewers on its website, which will be periodically updated.

_ The dates of reception and acceptance of articles will be included on the first page when they are published.

Stages of the review and publication process

The Editorial Board will decide on the procedure to apply to each manuscript depending on the briefs received from the external experts, whether publication, rejection or notification to the authors of amendments that must be made prior to publication. The reasoned decision and the reviews received will always be sent to the authors anonymously. Any amendments will be checked by the reviewers and reviewed by the erph Editorial Board once they have been introduced in the manuscripts by their authors. If a positive evaluation and a negative evaluation are received, the Editorial Board has the following options: 1) Require the authors to make the amendments indicated by the reviewers and decide regarding its publication once the amendments have been confirmed; 2) Send the corrected and checked manuscript for a third evaluation if it requires an in-depth reassessment. This third evaluation may be performed by one or both initial experts or by other experts in the field; 3) In exceptional cases, reject the manuscript if the arguments of the negative evaluation are so persuasive that publication is impossible in accordance with the quality criteria of the Journal and numerous objections are also raised in the positive evaluation. In any event, the decision adopted by the Editorial Board will be duly notified to the authors and accompanied by the evaluation reports received.

When the authors send the revised version of the manuscript, it must include:

_ The text with the changes marked using Track Changes.

_ A detailed document responding to the matters raised by the reviewers.

_ The text with all the changes accepted without tracking of changes and with the Track Changes tool disabled.

_ A footnote marked with an asterisk * associated with the name of the author(s), outlining the criteria chosen to decide the order of signature and the specific contributions made by each of the authors to the published article.

Papers, articles and reviews that have been accepted will be sent to the authors once they have been formatted for them to make any necessary corrections to the text. At the same time, the Chief Editor or head of the section will indicate the maximum deadline for resubmission of the amended texts. Following expiry of the proposed deadline without the author(s) having resubmitted the corrected texts, the Editorial Board will adopt the decision it deems appropriate regarding publication of the work. erph does not have a team responsible for proofing of articles, so the authors are responsible for ensuring that all the necessary corrections have been made to the final published version.

Criteria for acceptance of publications

The decision to accept or reject manuscripts submitted is based on the following criteria:

An overall assessment of the originality, novelty and relevance of the research carried out, its interest for the section of the Journal it is being submitted to and its degree of contribution to existing literature in the field.
The reliability and scientific validity of both the sources consulted and the methods used to carry out the research.
Whether it is adequately written, with logical structuring and presentation of the manuscript according to the Journal’s style guide and citation standards.

Frequency of publication

Two issues per year: 1 (first semester) and 2 (second semester).

Receipt of contributions

Issue 1 (first period): deadline 1 May; issue deadline 30 July

Issue 2 (second period): deadline 1 November; issue deadline 31 December

Open Access Policy

This Journal provides immediate and free access to its content based on the principle of free availability of research for the public in order to foster greater interchange of global knowledge.

We apply the recommendations for the implementation of section 37 of the Spanish Science, Technology and Innovation Act regarding Open Access:

_ Authors whose contributions are accepted for publication in this Journal retain the non-exclusive right to use their contributions for scholarly, research and educational purposes, including self-archiving or deposit in open access repositories of any kind.

_ The published version of scientific contributions (editor’s post-print version) will preferably be used, or failing that the author's post-print version following review and acceptance. The articles will be openly accessible as soon as possible as the Journal does not impose any embargo period.

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

The basic model applied by erph_Electronic Journal of Historical Heritage consists of publication of unpublished research papers and results of specific heritage experiences and projects following an external double-blind peer review process.

erph adheres to the Code of Conduct and the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org/ and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf)

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content. Other persons contributing to the work who are not authors should be included in the acknowledgements section. The order of the authors will be jointly agreed by the co-authors and the Journal will not in any case act as a mediator. All authors agree to disclose any current or potential conflict of interest in relation to the publication of their article. Authors must ensure that they have written original works and when they use material that is not their own they must duly cite their sources. Any attempted plagiarism will lead to rejection of the manuscript submitted or if not previously detected, removal from publication and substitution with a reference “Removed due to plagiarism.”

Authors should not submit the same manuscript or describe essentially the same research in more than one journal. All articles and reviews published in erph should be written using inclusive language. No manifestly racist or sexist content will be accepted, nor any other type of content which breaches the fundamental rights of individuals.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, he/she must immediately notify the Journal and duly cooperate to retract or correct the document. The Journal will take all reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of documents that contravene this code of ethics or engage in research or publication malpractice, dealing appropriately with the allegations and facilitating the publication of corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies where necessary. The information contained in the texts and the images accompanying them are the sole responsibility of their respective authors.

Article processing and submission costs

This Journal does not charge authors any amount for the submission or processing of articles.

Copyright notice

Authors publishing works in this Journal agree to the following terms:

a) Authors retain copyright over their works and grant the Journal first publication rights (reproduction, publication, distribution, dissemination and exhibition).

b) The work will be simultaneously available under a Creative Commons licence which allows the work to be shared with third parties, provided that they recognise the authorship and first publication in the Journal and the publication is not for profit: Attribution - Non-Commercial 4.0.

c) The authors are free to enter into any additional independent contractual agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the Journal, provided that first publication in this Journal is recognised.

Authors are encouraged to reproduce and host their published works in institutional repositories, websites, etc. with the aim of contributing towards knowledge transfer and citation of the works.

Communication with authors and external reviewers

One of the authors must be in charge of or responsible for the work as a whole and communication with the Journal from the outset and until it has been published.

Communication with authors and external reviewers (acknowledgement of receipt, notice of acceptance, consultation of queries, etc.) will be carried out via the Journal’s OJS system. For any other queries, authors and reviewers may contact their section editor using the email indicated in the correspondence and with the Editorial Board by writing to redaccionerph@ugr.es.

Interoperability Protocol

erph uses the Dublin Core schema for its metadata tags and can export in METS XML, PubMed XML, mEDRA and CrossRef XML format. The interoperability protocol used is OAI 2.0, which is available at:

Editorial practices regarding gender equality

erph is committed to achieving effective equality between women and men in society through the following actions:

Editorial participation: The Journal aims for a balanced editorial team of women and men, which is reflected both in the composition of the editorial and advisory boards and in the selection of external reviewers.

Use of inclusive language: erph recommends the use of inclusive language in scientific articles that is in line with the principle of equality, replacing the use of the generic masculine to designate all individuals in a class or group, whether male or female, with generic terms, explanatory phrases, omission of references to the subject or, when none of the above is possible, references to both genders.

For more details of the different alternatives and proposed uses please visit the UN website: Gender-inclusive language.

Sex and gender in research: All research should avoid gender stereotypes and biases that adopt the masculine as the universal reference, exacerbate biological differences or naturalise socially constructed differences. They should also take into account the gender variable in any type of research involving humans or animals:

Reflect and make informed decisions regarding the gender composition of the samples and report the gender of the research subjects.
Analyse the differences within each gender and present the results disaggregated by gender.

For more details, see the Handbook on Gender in Research (PDF in Spanish).