Publishing ethics, duties, and policies

The Editorial Team and Publisher of the journal «Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control»  provides support of such statements and principles of publishing ethics and duties:

  1. Elsevier statement of publishing ethics 
  2. ICMJE Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals
  3. CONSORT standards for randomized trials
  4. The STM trade Association International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication
  5. COPE Codes of Conduct
  6. Elsevier policy on the permanence of the scientific record
  7. Elsevier policy on editorial independence
  8. Elsevier educational content on Ethics in Research & Publication
  9. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Best Practice 
  10. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Editors in Chief sharing
  11. Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for Editors
  12. World Medical Association (WMA) Helsinki Declaration for Medical Research in Human Subject 
  13. Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines 
  14. The U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 
  15. EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments 
  16. U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 
  17. Elsevier policy on patient consent
  18. WAME Editorial statement on COI 
  19. Rossner and Yamada, 2004. The Journal of Cell Biology, 166, 11-15.
  20. EASE Statements and Endorsements
  21. The SAGER Guidelines
  22. EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English
  23. EASE Quick-Check Table for Submissions
  24. EASE Form for Authors
  25. EASE Standard Retraction Form
  26. IEEE Publishing Ethics
  27. IEEE Publishing Principles 
  28. Nature Editorial Policies 

The Editorial Team and Publisher of the journal  agrees that monitoring publishing ethics is a major 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 has accepted the guidelines worked out by the mentioned above sources to support editors, reviewers and authors in keeping to ethical principles. Also Publisher and Editorial Team are closely collaborates with other publishers to set standards for best practices on ethical matters. These guidelines are based on existing policies mentioned above.

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 what articles that were 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.


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 researches without 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.

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 needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or 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 shares the view  that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.


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.


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"

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Links between the accused and the named reviewer will also be checked, such as the same department, personal relationships, and other conflicts of interest.
  4. If the reviewer's guilt is proven, he will be permanently removed from the publisher's database.
  5. 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"

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.

Selection policy of editor

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 or PhD 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 defining but do not mean that in the future they cannot be supplemented or adjusted if it is necessary to adapt to the tightening conditions of our time in relation to the quality and visibility of scientific publications.

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.  and Unicheck).

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. I

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 interests of transparency and to help readers form their own judgments about possible bias, the journal requires authors to declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in 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".

Rules for reject published articles

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

  • initiation of an investigation regarding the need to retract a publication;
  • assessment of the possibility of retraction of a publication;
  • removal of a published article;
  • formation of a notice of retraction of a publication;
  • consideration of the issue of introduction changes to the published article.

Initiation of the initiation of an investigation into the need to retract a publication.

It is carried out if the editors received 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.

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

  • facts of violation of the terms of the License Agreement 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.

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.

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.

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.


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".

Data Sharing Policy

All articles are published in open access.

The editors of the journal would like the authors of papers published in the journal to share their recent data that confirm the results. The authors may archive the data in a publicly accessible collection.

Data, which confirm the results obtained, are available from the authors only at their discretion. The authors can be contacted at the email address given in the paper.

The rights and confidentiality of research participants on people participating in research must be protected.

Publication policy regarding advertising

The journal does not publish advertising materials.