Canon of Scholarly Presentation

Introduction §

The present framework statement governs the website and the publications maintained by the Szemere Bertalan Hungarian Law Enforcement History Scientific Society (SZBMRTT), in particular the historical studies. The authors and the publisher proceed in accordance with the following principles.

1. Source citation practice §

In accordance with international academic norms, studies on historical subjects build upon the author's earlier basic research grounded in archival sources; they offer a synthesis and further development of that research. It is therefore neither necessary nor expedient to republish all primary sources in each individual study: reference to earlier publications is academically acceptable, provided that:

• the works cited are unambiguously identifiable and verifiable by their bibliographic data;
• every assertion whose substantiation, and whose first scholarly treatment of its source, is to be found in the work in question is accompanied by an explicit reference;
• new sources not yet contained in the material published hitherto are themselves indicated by the study (for example by archival reference).

2. Methodological diversity and the primacy of the research question §

The methodological approach of the studies — including the application or omission of international comparative analysis — depends solely on the research question. The presence or absence of international comparison does not in itself constitute either a scholarly virtue or a deficiency. The measure of scholarly quality is whether the methodology chosen is coherent and suited to answering the research question; the examination of this is the task of the author's methodological justification and of the publisher's professional peer-review procedure.

3. Objectivity and freedom from preconception §

The authors and the publisher reject any form of prior assumption (preconception): their work rests upon a source-based, impartial conception of history. A scholarly proposition formulated in the course of research (a hypothesis) is not identical with a preconception: a hypothesis is a verifiable assertion that can be supported or refuted by sources, and the test of its acceptability is therefore the principle of falsifiability. A preconception, by contrast, is a prior opinion maintained independently of the sources, which obstructs objective inquiry.

4. Authenticity and chain of provenance §

By chain of provenance we mean the documented path of a piece of information leading from the source to the published assertion: from the indication of the source, through the bibliographic reference, to the authentication of the digital document. Accordingly

• the scholarly assertions published can be traced back to verifiable sources or to the publications referred to in point 1;
• authors' biographical data and ORCID identifiers can be reconciled with public, authoritative registers;
• the authenticity of the digital publications — where available — can be verified by means of the publisher's publicly disclosed GPG key and the checksum of the document;
• the aforementioned means of verification are accessible on the website.

5. Correction of errors (errata) §

The publisher examines every reported error of substance or form; if the report is well founded, the error is corrected in the next version, and the correction is entered in the changelog. Error reports may be submitted through the publisher's official contact details.

6. Framework of responsibility and interpretation §

The historical interpretation set out in the studies reflects the professional position of the author. The present framework statement serves to regulate debate, not to exclude it: scholarly objections may be raised in the established forums (review, rejoinder, conference paper).

7. Use and citation §

Unless the individual publications provide otherwise, the licensing terms published on the website govern the use of their content. When citing a digital document, it is recommended that the version number and — where published — the checksum also be indicated.

8. Amendment of the framework statement §

The present framework statement may be amended by the competent body of the Society. Every amendment receives a new version number; earlier versions remain accessible on the website, together with the changelog.