Publishing ethics, duties, and policies

The Editorial Team and Publisher of the journal "Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control" provide support for such statements and principles of publishing ethics and duties:

The Editorial Team and Publisher of the journal agree that monitoring publishing ethics is a crucial aspect of the editorial and peer-review process, and as such, lies within the area of responsibility of the editor-in-chief or scientific editor of each journal.

The Editorial Team and the Publisher have accepted the guidelines developed by the sources mentioned above to support editors, reviewers, and authors in adhering to ethical principles. Additionally, the Publisher and Editorial Team work closely with other publishers to establish best-practice standards for ethical matters. These guidelines are based on existing policies mentioned above.

Declaration on Non-Discrimination and Equal Treatment

The journal is committed to promoting an environment of equality, diversity, and inclusion.
The Editorial Board and Publisher of a journal are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and fair treatment.
All submissions undergo a rigorous peer-review process based strictly on merit. All manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual content, scientific rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
The editorial team shall not consider the personal characteristics or identity of the authors as factors for publication.
We strictly prohibit any form of discrimination or bias based on: identity (race, ethnicity, color, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity), beliefs (religious or political opinions), background (national or social origin, age, or disability), affiliation (institutional rank or geographic location of the authors).
We use such editorial policies to prevent discrimination and to provide an equal treatment: blind review (peer review is conducted objectively to minimize unconscious bias), diverse representation (we strive for diversity within our editorial board and reviewer pools to ensure a balanced and fair assessment of global research), anti-harassment and zero tolerance toward discriminatory language (any evidence of discriminatory language or harassment, hate speech, or exclusionary rhetoric within manuscripts, reviewer comments, and editorial correspondence within the submission or review process will result in immediate rejection or dismissal), and equity in access (we committed to removing barriers for researchers from underrepresented communities or developing regions, providing equal free of charge support throughout the publication cycle and free of charge access for the readers to the published papers).
This policy aligns with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and ensures that the merit of the research remains the only factor in the decision-making process.

Peer Review Process

To ensure high-quality, unbiased expert evaluation of the submitted manuscript, the editorial board uses a double-blind (double anonymized) peer review. This process involves the following stages:

The journal editor considers all submission materials (article manuscript and accompanying materials) to assess their compliance with the journal's subject matter, policies, and requirements. The approximate time for the initial review of an article by the editor is 1-2 weeks. In case the paper does not meet the subject of the journal or is of low scientific quality, or is not correctly formatted and structured, or does not fulfill the journal's requirements and policies, the editor rejects the submission, informing the authors about the reasons, or proposes that the authors revise the submission.
If all journal requirements are met, the submission is sent to peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field. Both external experts and members of the journal's editorial board may be involved in the review. The selection of reviewers for each article is determined by their level of expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and previous experience. The author receives a message that the manuscript has been submitted for review. The manuscript undergoes a double anonymized (double-blind) review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other. Regarding reviewers, the editorial board requests confirmation of the absence of a conflict of interest at the stage of manuscript selection for review or at the time of manuscript receipt by the reviewer. If such a conflict is detected at the stage of reviewing, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office of this and refuse to review this manuscript. The use of artificial intelligence or other automated means to write a review is prohibited for reviewers. If the reviewers' decisions differ, the submission is sent to a third reviewer. As a result, if two reviews are negative, the paper is rejected. The approximate time for reviewers to review the article is 1-2 months.
Reviewers' comments are transmitted to the authors, together with possible recommendations for the manuscript revision. The editor informs the authors whether the manuscript is accepted without revision, whether they are given the opportunity to revise the manuscript and resubmit it, or whether the manuscript is rejected.
In the event of disagreement with the reviewers' conclusions, the authors may submit a scientifically substantiated response to the comments provided to the editorial office, which will be considered by the reviewers and the editor.
If the paper is recommended for publication as a result of peer review, it is checked by the editorial office for plagiarism and text borrowings using special software and electronic services. A detailed inspection report is sent to the editor, as well as to the authors, if necessary to revise the article, or if the editor decides to reject the article. The approximate period of review of the article is 1-2 weeks. If the article does not contain plagiarism (correct references are provided for all borrowings), but the article has a low level of originality, then the editor asks the authors to revise the article, or if the authors do not agree or cannot ensure a high level of originality, then the editor rejects it. If significant borrowed text fragments are found in an article that are not referenced (plagiarism or self-plagiarism), the editor will reject the article for publication if such fragments are significant, or will return the article to the authors for revision. After revision, the article will be resubmitted for plagiarism and textual borrowing checks. If the article did not indicate the use of artificial intelligence tools and/or links to external sources for its writing or the creation of its elements (tables, figures, programs, etc.), but the reviewers or editor have determined that significant fragments of the article were created by artificial intelligence or taken from external sources, then the editor has the right to reject the article or send it to the authors for revision.
If the article is recommended for publication by the reviewers and, after revisions by the authors, is deemed original and free of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and copyright infringement, it is finally accepted for publication by the editor, and the editor informs the authors. The approximate time for final consideration of the article is 1-2 weeks.

Duties of the Editor of the Journal "Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control"

Publication decisions

The editor of the journal «Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control» is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor must be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as libel avoidance, copyright infringement and plagiarism will be a force. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

The editor of the journal «Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control» must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor of the journal «Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control» and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the author’s written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected with the papers.

Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if the interests’ conflict was revealed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate actions should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or an expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.

Non-peer-reviewed sections of the journal should be clearly identified.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editor of the journal «Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control» should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society).

Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of the formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

The Editorial Team and Publisher of the journal share the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research own researches without the author’s written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept in confidence and not used for personal advantage. 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 with the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of the reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and in any event should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, it has to be appropriately cited or quoted then.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution), to claiming results from the research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

In general, an author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal or conference concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit previously published paper for consideration in another journal. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., translations) in more than one journal can be justifiable sometimes, but if certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the concerned journals must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. When there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human as a subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage which is possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide the evidence of the correctness of the original paper tothe editor.

Plagiarism detection

The peer-review process is at the heart of the success of scientific publishing. As a part of our commitment to the protection and enhancement of the peer-review process, Publisher and Editorial Team of the journal has an obligation to assist the scientific community in all aspects of publishing ethics, especially in cases of (suspected) duplicate submission or plagiarism.

Actions in case of violation

If there is a suspicion that the reviewer has appropriated the ideas or data of the author:

The algorithm of actions is based on the COPE scheme "What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data"

This case can only be considered if documentary evidence from the author and / or other sources is provided, for example, publication, abstract, meeting report, copy of slides, grant application. And after examining the evidence (or contacting a specialist with the appropriate qualifications for this) and deciding whether the claims of the author and/or other sources are valid.
If the allegation has been proven, a request for investigation will be submitted to the reviewer and the institution of which he is an employee.
Links between the accused and the named reviewer will also be checked, such as the same department, personal relationships, and other conflicts of interest.
If the reviewer's guilt is proven, he will be permanently removed from the publisher's database.
If the borrowed idea or data has been published in another source, a request will be made to the relevant publication sources asking them to accept the withdrawal policy of the published material.

If there are suspicions of ethical issues with the submitted manuscript:

The algorithm of actions is based on the COPE scheme "What to do if you suspect an ethical problem"

Such suspicion may arise if, for example, there is a lack of ethical approval / concern regarding patient consent or protection / concern regarding animal experiments, etc.
A request will be made to the contributing author to provide relevant details (for example, an ethics committee certificate or a copy of informed consent documents).
If the relevant documents are not provided:

– the manuscript will be rejected and will not be published in the journal;

– the case will be referred for investigation to the institution of which the author (s) is (are).

Authorship identification

Authorship identification means obtaining assurances that each author of the manuscript's group of authors has contributed to the research, in a certain part of it. In case of any doubts on the part of the editorial, which may be based, in particular, on the discrepancy between the content of the manuscript and the competence of one of the authors in terms of the field of sciences, the field of scientific interests, other publications of the given author, the editorial board requires the group of authors to distribute the contribution to the conduct of research and preparation of the manuscript, with a separate emphasis on the contribution of the author in respect of whom doubts arose.

A correspondent author should be singled out from the composition of the group of authors, who acts on behalf of the entire group of authors on any issues of interaction with the editorial board. He/she is responsible for ensuring that all agreements regarding the rules of the Publisher for the transformation of the manuscript into an article and its subsequent publication are reached, as well as at the stage after the publication of the article, if such a need arises. If there is a need, justified on the part of the authors, to remove or add co-authors, or to change the order of authors, such changes after the submission of the manuscript are possible only with the approval of each author.

The authorship identification process also presupposes the prevention of ghost authors, guest authors and gift authors from appearing in the group of authors. As regards the implementation of the rules for working with a manuscript, this procedure is standard for starting work with a manuscript.

In the event of situations not described above and probably not foreseen in advance, in terms of the reality of authorship in this manuscript, the editors take actions based on the recommendations of COPE.

Policy on editor selection

Role of Editor

The journal editor is the person who accompanies the entire process of converting a manuscript into a finished work. A finished work is a scientific paper that has passed the full Regulations and is ready for publication in the journal. Regulation is a set of all works provided for by the publishing workflow, including the procedures for double-blind peer review, editing of the manuscript for further publication, subject to fulfillment of all requirements for acceptance to publications. In fact, editor is a communicator connecting all parties (Actors) of the publishing process.

Editor's Responsibility

The editor is responsible for:

correct positioning of the manuscript according to the field of science, scientific topics, relevance
the timeliness of initiating the start of the implementation of the Regulations, provided that the author fulfills the requirements for the design and submission of the manuscript,
the quality of communication with all participants (Actors) involved in the process of passing the manuscript, with the production team in the process of publishing the finished work, with the analytics group responsible for working with indexing resources of world scientific periodicals after the publication of the work,
compliance with ethical standards in accordance with the recommendations of the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE),
compliance with data privacy requirements.

Editor's Responsibilities

The editor is obliged:

to consider the possibility of publishing a manuscript received by e-mail of the editorial office;
to evaluate the manuscript for uniqueness and absence of plagiarism or duplicate;
to evaluate the manuscript for compliance with the format and subject of the journal;
to evaluate the manuscript for relevance and compliance with the requirements of the journal for design and presentation;
to select reviewers (for each manuscript of two reviewers in this scientific area, for the double-blind peer review procedure);
to provide interested reviewers with all the forms necessary for reviewing and, if necessary, instruct them regarding the type of review submission and deadlines (deadline);
to communicate, if necessary, with reviewers during the review process;
to provide a process for the author to receive a review and set the deadlines for finalizing the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers, if the reviewers received an assessment of the manuscript, suggesting the need for its subsequent revision to make a final decision on a positive or negative assessment;
to prepare a reasoned opinion on the rejection of the manuscript, if the reviewers received a negative assessment of it, for consideration by the editor-in-chief;
to provide feedback to reviewers to familiarize them with the revised version of the manuscript to obtain a final assessment ‒ positive or negative;
to inform the author of the decision of the editorial office on the possibility of publication, based on the assessment of reviewers;
to ensure high-quality interaction with technical editors and translators in the case of a positive decision on publication;
to communicate with the author in order to fulfill the requirements of technical editors, control this process until full approval is received regarding the final design of the manuscript that fully complies with the requirements of the editorial board;
to communicate with the editorial-publishing department of the Publisher,
to personally strictly follow ethical standards in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for journal editors;
to monitor compliance with the requirements for the safety of confidential data in the process of implementing the Regulations.

Criteria for selecting editors

The criteria for selecting editors are based not only on his performance as an independent researcher, but, first of all, on the availability of skills that meet the requirements of modernity for the presentation and promotion of scientific information based on integrative principles. The editor must meet the following core criteria:

the editor must have either a Doctor of Science scientific degree;
organizational skills and communication skills;
ability to work with all the most common means of communication;
enthusiasm and desire not only to work but also to independently develop in the chosen direction;
participate in specialized webinars, seminars, etc. to improve personal professional level, stimulating the development of the journal.

The listed requirements are defined, but do not mean that, in the future, they cannot be supplemented or adjusted if necessary to adapt to the tightening conditions of our time regarding the quality and visibility of scientific publications.

Policy on reviewer selection

The selection of reviewers for the journal should be aimed at ensuring objectivity, competence and absence of conflict of interest.
The main criteria for selecting reviewers are:
1. Competence and reputation: Reviewers must have high qualifications (PhD or Doctor habilitated of Science scientific degree), research experience, and recent publications in the relevant field of knowledge, authority, and recognition in the international professional community.
2. Absence of conflict of interest: The reviewer must not work at the same institution as the authors, cannot be their supervisor or grant colleague, cannot have a family relationship with them, and cannot have a personal bias. The reviewer cannot be a co-author of the article being reviewed. The journal does not accept reviews from authors of their own work, nor does it accept recommendations from authors regarding the selection of reviewers.
3. Objectivity and independence: The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript with dignity, ignoring racial, gender, national, or religious factors.
4. Use of different sources: To search for experts, it is recommended to use not only personal contacts of editors, but also bibliographic databases and the journal’s author database.
5. Responsibility: The reviewer must confirm their readiness to conduct a qualitative analysis within the established deadline. If the reviewer understands that he does not have sufficient competence to evaluate all aspects of the article, he is obliged to declare this.
6. Reviewing experience: Knowledge of reviewer candidates of standards of academic honesty, the ability to give constructive, polite criticism. The quality of the reviewer’s previous reviews.
7. Geographic diversity: Involvement of reviewers from different countries/regions and institutions to prevent bias.

Publication misconduct includes plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission/multiple submissions, overlapping publication, and salami publication.

The journal does not publish papers containing elements of misconducts. Authors are prohibited from submitting misconduct manuscripts to the journal. The journal's editors and reviewers are obliged to make every possible effort to identify such articles and prevent their publication in the journal. If it is found that the published article is misconduct, then it is subject to the retraction procedure.

Policy on plagiarism and self-plagiarism

The journal does not publish material containing plagiarism or self-plagiarism (duplicate). After being sent to the editor, manuscripts are checked for plagiarism or self-plagiarism using special services (i.e. StrikePlagiarism.com and Grammarly).

Each case identified is subject to additional analysis to confirm the existence of the fact of proper attribution by the authors of the manuscript. If the fact of lack of proper attribution (plagiarism) is confirmed, the manuscript is rejected without the right to reconsider. If self-plagiarism is found, the manuscript is rejected and a notification is sent to the author that his/her manuscript is not unique enough.

If plagiarism is found after the publication of the article, the article is marked in all indexing resources with the label "PLAGIARISM" or "DUPLICATE", without deleting it from the archive of the journal, where the same label is used.

Policy to prevent citation misconduct and manipulation

Citation misconduct is a deliberate manipulation of references to artificially boost citation metrics for authors, journals, or institutions. It includes coercive citation (when editors or reviewers forcing authors to add unnecessary citations to their own work or specific journals to increase impact factors as a condition for acceptance), excessive self-citation (the inclusion of numerous references to the author's own previous work that do not significantly contribute to the current study's scientific content), citation cartels/rings (groups of authors or journals collaborate to cite each other excessively to mutually boost their metrics, regardless of relevance), and ‘honorary’ citation / ‘citation stacking’ (excessive citation of the work of another author (e.g., the editor-in-chief of the journal to which one is submitting a manuscript or a well-known scholar in the field of the researcher) or excessive citation of articles from the journal in which the author is publishing a research article as a means solely of increasing the number of citations of the author(s)/ journal(s) journal), artificial citation (the author adds excessive references to publications in order to increase the list of sources, to artificially ensure overcoming the self-citation restriction threshold or to simulate the breadth and depth of the sources worked on)

The editor, members of the editorial board, and reviewers of the journal are prohibited from suggesting that authors cite their own works, the works of other authors, and journals unless they are necessary for the content of the article.

Authors are prohibited from citing the works of the journal, its editor, members of the editorial board, and other authors in submitted manuscripts unless they are necessary for the content of the article.

Editors are advised to check for “citation stuffing” in the revised manuscript.

In case of suspicion of citation misconduct, editors/reviewers should require authors to provide justification for the relevant references.

Authors should not exceed the self-citation threshold set by the journal.

Editors and reviewers are advised to look for anomalous patterns, such as a sudden spike in citations to a specific journal or author in revised versions of a paper that were not requested for scientific reasons.

Violations may result in manuscript rejection, editorial removal, or retraction.

Policy on use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation tools for content creation and processing

The journal's editorial board believes in using AI and other computer tools responsibly, for the benefit of the research community, our authors, editors, readers, and staff.

Any use of artificial intelligence (AI) or other computer content-creating tools should only be done under full human control.

Editors and reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts under review to generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or using other AI technologies or functions that may compromise confidentiality.

Editors and reviewers are prohibited from using AI tools to write comments or reports on manuscript review.

The journal publishes original work from named human authors; therefore, contributions from AI assistants can only be acknowledged in the acknowledgments and/or by suitable references in the original research papers. Authors of the manuscript should not list AI and AI-enabled technologies as authors or co-authors, nor should they cite AI as an author.

Authors of the manuscript should carefully review and edit the output, as AI can generate results that may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased, but appear authoritative.

Any use of AI and content-creating tools, including large language models (LLMs), other than translation, predictive keyboards, grammar, spelling, and punctuation checking, should be declared in the appropriate section of the article.

The declaration should include the name and version number of the AI tool(s), the part of the article or study in which the AI tool(s) were used, the purpose of using the AI tool(s), a description of the human review process, and the impact on the conclusions reached in the study.

Authors should check the terms of use of AI tools that they wish to use and be sure that the materials provided by them are used only for the purposes set by the authors and that they do not grant AI tools any other rights, including the right to learn. Authors should ensure that the results they obtain using the AI tool can be freely used by them, including for further publication within the framework of an article that will be placed in the public domain.

While AI-assisting tools may be used as search assistants, authors should still read and discuss the identified literature; the usual requirements for citation accuracy and thoroughness of literature reviews still apply.

If AI-generated text describes widely known concepts, the authors should specify where it was used and ensure that it is accurate and accompanied by relevant and appropriate citations.

Using AI assistants to generate new ideas and new text is unacceptable. Most of the generated content may derive from existing work. Potential issues with such practice are related to originality, plagiarism, ownership, and authorship, whose consequences and impact are unclear.

Authors should avoid using AI tools to generate images, program text, and references unless this is the explicit purpose of the article. The use of AI tools should be acknowledged in the captions of generated materials (figures, tables, program text).

When submitting an article manuscript, authors should make sure that AI tools have not been used to write any of the substantive parts of the manuscript. Any undeclared, inappropriate or prohibited use of AI tools, detected at any stage of manuscript review or after publication of the article, will be considered data manipulation and may lead to refusal of acceptance for publication or withdrawal of the article after publication.

If authors have doubts about whether a method or result obtained using AI tools is permitted by the journal, they can contact the editorial board with this question before submitting the manuscript. In this case, a detailed description of the use of AI tools will be required.

The journal's editorial board may utilize automated text analysis tools (e.g., https://www.pangram.com) and article materials to determine whether they were created using AI tools, both during the initial review stage and after peer review. The editorial board reserves the right not to send authors full reports on the check for the use of AI tools. In the event of the detection of undeclared and/or improper use of AI tools, the editor may reject the submission or request additional justification from the authors regarding the use of AI tools.

Conflict of Interest

When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors must declare the presence/absence of any competing financial and/or non-financial interests.

In the interest of transparency and to help readers form their own judgments about potential bias, the journal requires authors to declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests related to the work described.

Authors should indicate all the information necessary to confirm transparency in terms of potential financial interests:

organizations interested in financing this development, the specific roles of such organizations in the design of the study or work with certain parts of the manuscript, including collection, analysis, systematization of the data given in the manuscript, as well as in deciding on the publication of the manuscript;
organizations that can extract financial interests from the publication of a manuscript or incur losses as a result of its publication as a finished article in a journal;
organizations that finance research at the material level (equipment, tooling, components, consumables, reagents, etc.) and/or payroll.

Authors are encouraged to provide information regarding personal financial interests if they can influence others who may suffer losses as a result of the publication of the manuscript as an article in the journal.

Other financial interests not specifically listed here, which may have any, even indirect negative impact, must be indicated to fully confirm the absence of a conflict of interest.

Authors are encouraged to also indicate any non-financial competing interests if they could have any negative impact, even indirectly. In the event that the authors are bound by confidentiality obligations, which makes it impossible to disclose in whole or in part information regarding financial or non-financial interests, the editorial office does not require the disclosure of these interests, recognizing the full right to maintain confidentiality. In this case, it is enough for the authors to declare the existence of a conflict of interest at the time of submission of the manuscript to the editor.

With regard to reviewers, the editorial board asks to confirm the absence of a conflict of interest at the stage of selection of manuscripts for review or at the time of receipt of the manuscript by the reviewer. If such a conflict is detected at the stage of reviewing, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office of this and refuse to review this manuscript. The editorial in such a situation are guided by the recommendations These recommendations are based on the COPE schemes: "What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript" and "What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article".

Policy on disclosure of financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflicts of interest

All participants in the peer-review and publication process (authors, peer reviewers, editors, and editorial board members) of the journal must consider and disclose their relationships and activities when fulfilling their roles in the process of article review and publication. Purposeful failure to report thіs relationships or activities is a form of misconduct.
Authors, when submitting a manuscript of any type or format, are responsible for disclosing all relationships and activities that might bias or be seen to bias their work. Support for an individual's contribution for the work should be reported as such. Authors must avoid entering into agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose. Policies that dictate where authors may publish their work violate this principle of academic freedom. Authors may be required to provide the journal with the agreements in confidence.
Reviewers must disclose to editors any relationships or activities that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests. Reviewers should be asked at the time they are asked to critique a manuscript if they have relationships or activities that could complicate their review.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have relationships or activities that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Editors should regularly publish their own disclosure statements and those of their journal staff. Guest editors should follow these same procedures.
Editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their relationships or activities (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which an interest that poses a potential conflict exists. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain.
Articles should be published with statements declaring: authors’ relationships and activities; sources of support for the work (including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; any restrictions regarding the submission of the report for publication; or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement or restrictions regarding publication); access to the study data, with an explanation of the nature and extent of access, including whether access is on-going.

Policy to prevent conflict of interest for editors and editorial board members as paper authors

Submissions by editors-in-chief and editorial board members are subject to strict ethical guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest.
The journal has such procedures for the editorial submissions.
When an editor submits a manuscript, the editor must recuse themselves from the entire editorial process concerning this paper. The submission is managed by a different editor or, if necessary, the editor delegates handling to another board member to avoid bias.
Such manuscripts undergo an independent peer review to ensure scientific merit.
The editor or editorial board member who is an author of the submitted paper does not have access to the paper review process, and the reviewers are blinded to the author's identity.
The editor or editorial board member who is an author of the submitted paper must declare any conflicts regarding their own work and avoid using unpublished information from submitted manuscripts.
The submissions are evaluated solely based on quality, not on the author's position on the editorial board.

Policy on erratum/corrections

Corrections (errata or corrigenda) are necessary to maintain the integrity of the academic record when significant errors are identified in published articles.
An erratum is a correction of a mistake introduced by the journal during the production, editing, or printing process (e.g., mislabeling, typos).
A corrigendum is a correction of an error made by the author that affects the scholarly record but not the overall scientific integrity of the findings.
Corrections are used for minor errors that do not invalidate findings (as errors in figures, data, or author information), while major errors (invalidating the results) warrant retractions. If only a small portion is affected, a correction is preferred. All corrections must be clearly linked to the original article, ensuring that readers find the update easily. A formal notice must detail the changes. All corrections and retractions are freely available to all readers of the journal.
Editors should be notified of errors by authors or readers.
The editor evaluates the error, often in consultation with authors.
Corrections should include specific details about the error and the changes made. If an author's name or affiliation is omitted, a formal erratum should be published. A correction notice is published, linked to the original paper, making it clear what changes were made.
When a correction is made, the online version should ideally be updated to reflect the corrected information, with a note explaining the change.

Policy on a post-publication critique

The journal allows post-publication discussion through formal letters to the editor or informal comments on an external site (https://www.facebook.com/groups/cmis.workshop/).
Post-publication critiques provide readers with a mechanism to raise concerns or seek clarification about published content. Critiques may provide an alternative interpretation of the original content and allow the journal to engage with issues relevant to its research community. They also represent an opportunity for journals to present a scholarly and constructive exchange about issues important to their readership.
Post-publication discussion typically starts with a reader’s critique of an article that a journal has previously published. When formally submitted for journal publication, such critiques are commonly known as ‘letters to the editor’, ‘commentaries’, ‘comments’, or other types of ‘correspondence’.
Unlike informal or online post-publication discussions, after a formal critique is received, the journal invites the original authors of the critiqued article to write a ‘response’ or ‘reply’. Furthermore, both the critique and the response may be peer-reviewed and revised, and, if accepted and published, are indexed in bibliographic databases.
Through publication of such commentary and exchanges, readers can also be made aware of further developments and arguments that advance a field of research. Therefore, a default position for a journal is to consider critiques for publication if they are found to be constructive and useful to the community.

Policy on paper retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that have such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable content or data can result from honest error, naive mistakes, or research or publication misconduct.
The purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors. Of note, once an article is posted online (eg, so-called online first, not yet assigned to an issue), it is considered published.
Editors can decide to retract a publication if they no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in the paper. Reasons for this loss of confidence can be, but are not limited to:
- indications that the findings are unreliable because of irregularities in the data or their analysis, or both; fictitious or unavailable data; image irregularities, such as alterations and duplications; or major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error);
- the authorship of the publication cannot be verified, or there are serious concerns about accountability for the research;
- any form of misrepresentation (for example, with respect to accountability for the work; deception; fraud (eg, a paper mill); identity theft or fictitious authorship; or undisclosed involvement of artificial intelligence);
- the publication includes, as determined by the editor, an unacceptable level of overlap with previously published content;
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication);
- the publication contains material or data without authorisation for use, removal of which would affect the results and conclusion of the article;
- copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy);
- the publication reports unethical research;
- the peer review or publication process was compromised (eg, fake reviewers, paper mill use, or citation manipulation) and any additional review does not support publication;
- the authors failed to disclose a major competing interest or conflict of interest that, in the editor’s view, could have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers;
- the publication is, or includes, a meta-analysis or systematic review, the conclusions of which rely on content that has subsequently been corrected or retracted.
If an editor is uncertain about the reliability of a publication because of insufficient information, delays, or inability to obtain information, for example, retraction might not be appropriate. In this situation, and if warranted, an editor could consider publishing an expression of concern.
Retractions can be requested by the author or authors of an article, by an institution, by readers, or by editors. Regardless of who makes a request, decisions on retractions are made by editors. Publications should be retracted (or an expression of concern published) even if all or some of the authors do not agree. If redundant publication occurs, the journal that published the article first does not need to take action unless there are other concerns. Any journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract the article and state the reason for the retraction. If an article is published in more than one journal (either online or in print) at the same time, precedence may be determined by the publication dates or the dates when a licence to publish or the copyright transfer agreement was signed by the authors.
If partial overlap (ie, when authors present new findings in an article that has a substantial amount of previously published information) is identified after publication, editors should consider whether to retract the whole article or issue a correction, clarifying which parts of the article had been published previously and providing appropriate attribution to the earlier work. This approach will depend on the amount and nature of the overlap. In some cases (eg, description of a standard method), a limited degree of text recycling may be permissible.
A retraction notice is a formal, public statement issued by journal editors or authors to announce that a published paper contains significant flaws, errors, or misconduct, making its findings unreliable. Linked to the original article, it explains the reason for the retraction, maintains the scientific record, and marks the article as "Retracted".
A retraction notice should relate to one retracted article and be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of corrections or comments).
Notices should be published as soon as possible to minimise harmful effects. If there is a delay in the investigation, editors should consider publishing an editor’s note or an expression of concern.
Retraction notices should be freely available to all readers.
The category or type of retraction should be stated: retraction, retraction with replacement (articles that have serious errors that, when corrected, change the findings significantly but do not invalidate the underlying scholarship or methods of the study; copies of the original article, with errors and corrections highlighted, are published as supplements to the retracted and replaced article), or retraction with removal (to remove part or all of the content of an article from online publication, such as when the article violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or could have a serious health risk to the general public or the environment, the metadata (title, authors, date of publication, issue or volume, journal name, and affiliations) should be retained, and the retraction notice should clearly state why the content of the article has been removed).
If the concerns about the article were raised by a third party, their name could be included in the retraction notice, if relevant, and with permission. If the concerns were raised by an institutional investigation, this information should be included in the retraction notice.
If an expression of concern has previously been published for the same concern as the retraction, and a decision to retract the paper is made, the retraction notice should make clear that the retraction supersedes the expression of concern.
Retraction notices should be published in all versions of the journal (ie, print and online) and, as far as possible, should be linked to all other online versions relating to the reasons for retraction, such as those on preprint platforms or institutional archives, and also to the data underlying the paper.
The journal is responsible for ensuring that retractions are labelled so that they are identified by bibliographic databases and include a link to the retracted article. The retraction should appear on all online searches for the retracted publication.
A retraction notice should be objective and factual, and should avoid inflammatory or accusatory language.
The notice should be linked to the retracted article and should clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by adding ‘retracted’ at the beginning of the title, including the title and authors in the retraction heading, or citing the retracted article and its DOI).
Retracted articles should be unmistakably identified in all online sources (eg, on the journal website, including in the table of contents, on the original article, and on any bibliographic databases).
The authors and title of the retracted article should be included in the retraction heading.
Who is retracting the article should be stated (eg, the editor or publisher), along with the reasons and basis for retraction, so that readers understand why the article is unreliable. A link to relevant content (eg, online community peer reviews or critique articles) could be published if the material was used to inform the retraction decision.
Editors might consider including in the retraction notice whether (and which) authors agreed or disagreed with the retraction of the article. The content of the retraction notice is an editorial decision that is based on the outcome of the journal’s investigation. Editors should proceed with retraction and publication of the retraction notice even if the authors do not agree or cannot be contacted.
Batch retractions might be needed when there is evidence of large-scale systematic manipulation of the publication process in one or more journals (e.g., paper mills). Because they are related, the group of articles is treated as one entity for the purposes of investigation and retraction. Batch retraction notices should clearly state that systematic, coordinated, and widespread manipulation of the publication process has been identified and that the article is one of a group of articles affected by the same process of manipulation.
Communicating with authors. For both individual and batch retractions, authors should be notified of the decision before their article is retracted. Authors should be told why the editor decided to investigate their article, what caused the editor to lose confidence in the article, and why that concern cannot be resolved by a correction. Authors should also be reminded that the purpose of retractions is to maintain the integrity of the published record, and not to apportion blame or to punish authors.
Citing retracted articles: Authors should not cite retracted papers without acknowledging the retraction. To ensure that retracted articles are not cited inappropriately, references should be checked by the authors and the journal before publication.

Policy on expression of concern

An expression of concern is a notice to alert readers to major and credible concerns that have been raised about the reliability of a publication, but do not meet the criteria for a retraction or conclusive evidence will not or cannot be obtained for some time.
Editors should consider issuing an expression of concern to alert readers to potential concerns that may impact the reliability or conclusions of the work if significant and credible concerns have been raised but the evidence is unclear as to whether the work, or parts of the work, are potentially unreliable (the unreliability may be due to error, incorrect analysis, or concerns about research integrity and publication ethics that affect the main findings) or an institutional, funding, or other formal oversight investigation is ongoing that may result in corrections to the literature based on the reliability of the work or the authors have been asked to provide additional information to address the concerns that have been raised, and this information is not immediately available or there is a breach in the journal or publisher policy that cannot be resolved (eg, article data were available when the article was published but were later withheld by the authors), and a resolution is not expected to be reached at all or for some time (eg, several months).
An expressions of concern should have clear bidirectional links between the updated publication and the associated notice; clearly identify the article of concern (eg, by including the title and authors in the expression of concern heading, or citing the original article, or both); be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers); state the reason or reasons for concern; state who is issuing the concern; be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.
Expressions of concern are not usually appropriate if: the editor can readily make an initial decision leading to a correction, retraction, or no post-publication action; the editor expects to reach a conclusion or resolve the case in a short time frame (eg, a few weeks) because publishing an expression of concern that is immediately followed by a correction or retraction might be confusing for readers; the main findings of the work are still considered to be reliable; the only concerns related to the work are about the authorship.

Rules for retracting published articles

The Regulation regarding the retraction of published articles includes the implementation of five processes:

1. Initiation of the initiation of an investigation into the need to retract a publication. It is carried out if the editors receive substantiated evidence of the authors' misconduct in the course of the research and preparation of the manuscript. In doing so, editors are guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality.

2. Assessment of the possibility of a publication's retraction is carried out in the event that:

facts of violation of the terms of the journal's guidelines and policies are found;
facts of manipulation are discovered at the stage of reviewing manuscripts;
fact of violation by the authors of assurances regarding the existence of a conflict of interest is established;
fact of violation by authors of ethical standards in the process of research, preparation of a manuscript, implementation by the publisher of the rules for publishing an article.
In doing so, editors are guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality.

In doing so, editors are guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality.

3. Removal of a published article. The decision to remove a published article is made in the following cases:

the article violates someone's copyright or causes material or non-material damage to other persons or organizations, which may entail, in particular, legal proceedings;
the article contains information that may disclose the confidentiality of individuals or organizations, which may entail, in particular, litigation;
the article contains information that is subject to any object or entity that is the subject of litigation.

4. Formation of a notice of revocation of a publication. Notices of revocation of a publication is formed on the basis of the principle of objectivity and completeness of displaying arguments containing an irrefutable evidence base regarding the need to delete an article. Notifications contain the necessary information to identify the article by electronic resources for indexing scientific periodicals.

5. Consideration of the issue of making changes to a published article. This process is initiated in the following cases:

the revealed fact of violation of the authors' assurances regarding the existence of a conflict of interest can be corrected, the basis for which is solely the consent of the party that has declared the presence of a conflict of interest and has made reasonable claims in relation to this to the authors of the published article. The validity of the claim assumes the presence of proven facts and arguments regarding the actual existence of a conflict of interest;
the revealed fact of inaccuracies in the information about the authors in the list of authors;
an error has been identified in the results or research methodology, which can mislead potential readers and users of the article, which can lead to negative consequences from the use of the results or the inability to obtain / reproduce them.

In the case of republishing an article with corrections it goes through the full procedure in accordance with the Terms of Publication.

Appeals

The journal follow the COPE guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions. We welcome genuine appeals to editor decisions. However, you will need to provide strong evidence or new data/information in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. If you wish to appeal a journal editor’s decision, please submit an appeal letter to the journal’s editorial office. Please address this to the editor and explain clearly the basis for an appeal. You should:

Detail why you disagree with the decision. Please provide specific responses to any of the editor’s and/or reviewers’ comments that contributed to the reject decision.
Provide any new information or data that you would like the journal to take into consideration.
Provide evidence if you believe a reviewer has made technical errors in their assessment of your manuscript.
Include evidence if you believe a reviewer may have a conflict of interest.

After receiving the appeal, editors may involve any other members of the editorial team also as reviewers who handled the peer review of the original submission, depending on the nature of the appeal. Editors may confirm their decision to reject the manuscript, invite a revised manuscript, or seek additional peer- or statistical review of the original manuscript. Editors will consider one appeal per article and all decisions on appeals are final. The timely review and decision-making process for new submissions will take precedence over appeals.

Handling complaints

If complaints are received by the editorial office, their validity is checked. If the complaint is reasoned, it is considered by the editorial in accordance with the COPE recommendations.

The complaint is accepted for consideration by the editorial if it is filed officially and does not have a defamatory nature.

If the complaint has features of a defamatory nature or is not properly substantiated, the editorial office submits a request for the provision of facts and arguments in support of the validity of the complaint. If such facts and arguments are not provided, or they do not contain evidence sufficient to recognize the complaint as justified, the complaint is not considered.

In the event that the complaint concerns an already published article and its validity is proven, the article recall policy applies.

The editorial of the journal implements all procedures aimed at ensuring, guaranteeing and adhering to all ethical standards and principles of academic integrity.

Prevention of manipulation

By manipulation, the editorial understands the following likely events: an attempt to use falsified data or plagiarism in the manuscript, an attempt to substitute the results of an independent examination of the manuscript, or create conditions that prevent an independent assessment of the manuscript by reviewers. In cases where there are suspicions of such actions or doubts about the results of the examination, the editorial office is guided by the following principles:

– the manuscript is accepted for consideration from the corresponding author;

– when choosing a reviewer, the compliance of his scientific competence is assessed the subject of the manuscript, confirmed, among other things, by the presence of relevant publications

– the presence of facts is checked that may indicate an attempt to manipulate the results of the review. This procedure is carried out in accordance with the COPE recommendations "How to spot potential manipulation of the peer review process".

If the facts of manipulation attempts at the review stage are discovered, the editors are guided in choosing their actions by the COPE recommendations "What to do if you suspect peer review manipulation".

Open Science Policy

The journal adheres to the principles of open science as set out in the Budapest Open Access Initiative (https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/), Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC - https://i4oc.org/), Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA - https://i4oa.org/), Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information (https://barcelona-declaration.org/):

- commits to advance responsible research assessment and open science and to promote unbiased high-quality decision making, to satisfy an urgent need to make research information openly available through open scholarly infrastructures: to (1) making openness of research information the default, (2) working with services and systems that support and enable open research information, (3) supporting the sustainability of infrastructures for open research information, and (4) working together to realize the transition from closed to open research information;

– provides open access (free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself) for all published articles so they are freely accessible online, which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment;

– provides free access to full texts of scientific publications, data and other research results, as well as openness of the scientific process as a whole;

– provides open up citation data to promote the availability of data on citations that are structured (expressed in machine-readable formats, that can be accessed programmatically), separable (the citation instances can be accessed and analyzed without the need to access the source bibliographic products), and open (freely accessible and reusable);

– permits free academic use of abstracts (for example for text mining and fact extraction purposes) without the need to obtain separate permission from the publisher;

– advocates and promotes the unrestricted availability of the abstracts of articles in trusted repositories where they are open and machine-accessible, bringing abstracts together in a common format in one searchable cross-disciplinary database where they are available via an API;

– transmits metadata of published articles when registering a DOI in Crossref and other databases.

Policies on fair assessment of scientific activity

The journal supports the principles of fair assessment of scientific activity in accordance with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA - https://sfdora.org/about-dora/):-

– the evaluation of articles is carried out on the basis of the scientific content of the article without taking into account the bibliometric and scientometric indicators of the authors;

– research is evaluated based on its quality, novelty, and contribution to science;

– various types of research results (software, data, algorithms, technical solutions, etc.) are considered as the practical significance of the research;

– the journal encourages open access to data and codes;

– journal has no reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication;

– journal has no constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding;

– journal greatly reduces emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics that provide a richer view of journal performance;

– journal encourages responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.

Data management policies

The journal encourages the FAIR principles of data management (http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618) to ensure the discoverability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of data. The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.

Findable:metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers.

Accessible: possibility for users to know how they can be accessed required data, (including authentication and authorisation).

Interoperable: the data need to be integrated with other data and the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.

Reusable: metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.

Policy on deposit, sharing, and access of data

All articles are published in open access. The full texts and metadata of the articles are freely available on the journal's website, are freely distributed, and are deposited in abstract and scientometric databases. The journal allows the author to freely place preprints (after the editorial board has made a decision to recommend the article for publication) and postprints of the article in institutional, thematic, or other repositories, on websites and other media, but prohibits the submission of published articles to other publications and prohibits the submission of previously published articles for consideration.

The journal encourages authors to share their research data and computer programs that confirm the results obtained and make it possible to reproduce them.

Data and small program texts may be directly placed in the text of the article or in its appendices.

The journal encourages authors to place research data and computer programs in a public repositories and to include in the article a links to the data and/or programs placed in the repository. Links to data and programs placed in repositories are included in the metadata of articles available on the journal website and transmitted to abstract databases.

In cases where data supporting research results or programs cannot be made publicly available, authors are required to provide it upon request by editors and reviewers. Readers may request data and programs from authors by contacting the journal editorial office.

The rights and confidentiality of humans participating in research must be protected.

Publication policy regarding advertising

The journal does not publish advertising materials.

Policies and principles of transparency

1. Name of journal: The journal’s name is unique and not one that is easily confused with another journal. The journal’s name does not mislead potential authors and readers about the journal’s origin, scope, or association with other journals and organisations.

2. Website: The journal's website is properly supported and maintained, with particular attention given to security aspects that help protect users from viruses and malware. The website uses HTTPS, and all traffic is redirected through HTTPS. The website applies web standards and best ethical practices to the website’s content, presentation, and application. The website does not contain information that might mislead readers or authors. The website does not copy another journal/publisher’s site, design, or logo. If any text is copied from another website, an acknowledgement to the source is declared.

3. Website content: The following items are clearly displayed at the journal's website:

– aims and scope,

– target readership of the journal,

– types of manuscripts the journal considers for publication (for example, that multiple or redundant publication is not allowed),

– authorship criteria,

– ISSNs (separate for print and electronic versions),

– publishing schedule (a journal’s publishing frequency),

– archiving (a journal’s plan for electronic backup and long-term digital preservation of the journal content),

– copyright (the copyright terms for published content are clearly stated on the website and in the content, are separate and distinct from the copyright of the website, the copyright holder is named on the full text of all published articles (HTML and PDF),

– licencing (licencing information is clearly described on the website, licencing terms are indicated on the full text of all published articles (HTML and PDF), content designated as Open Access use an open licence, licencing policies about the posting of author manuscripts and published articles in third party repositories are clearly stated, the terms of Creative Commons licence are link to the correct licence on the Creative Commons website),

– publication ethics and related editorial policies (ensuring the integrity of the scholarly literature by avoiding plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others),

– peer review (the clearly stated on the website that the paper content is peer reviewed, the external experts or editorial board members conducts peer review, the used type of peer review, the policies related to the peer review procedures (the use of author recommended reviewers is prohibited, the masking of identities, the supplementary material is subjected to peer review, the reviews are not posted with articles, the reviews are anonymous for authors, how a decision about a manuscript is ultimately made and who is involved, journal is not guarantee acceptance of initial manuscript submissions, statements of peer review times are supported by published timeframes on accepted papers, in the event of delays, authors areinformed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript if they wish, the dates of submission and acceptance of publication are published with all published research),

– access (the information on the online and offline (print) versions is available on the website),

– ownership and management (information about the ownership and management of a journal is clearly indicated on the journal’s website; organisational names are not used in a way that could mislead potential authors and editors about the nature of the journal’s owner; the links to websites of an institution, sponsor, and society affiliation the journal is provided on the site),

– editorial and advisory bodies (the full names and affiliations of the members are provided on the journal’s website),

– contact information (the full names and affiliations of the editors, as well as contact information for the editorial office, including a full mailing address, are provided on the journal’s website),

– author fees (it is clearly stated that there are no author fees and article processing charges),

– revenue (the revenue sources are clearly stated on the journal’s website, and are not influenced on editorial decision making),

– advertising (it is clearly stated that the journal does not accept advertising),

– direct marketing (all direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts, that are conducted on behalf of the journal are appropriate, well-targeted, and unobtrusive; information provided about the publisher or journal is truthful and not misleading for readers or authors).

4. Publisher and editors are responsible for promoting accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity in all aspects of the publication. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit. They are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. The journal ensures that no policies create an exclusionary environment for anyone wanting to engage with it and should regularly assess its policies for inclusivity.

5. Journal encourages the use of persistent identifiers: DOIs for papers and datasets, ORCIDs for authors, RORs for institutions.