Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Technical Sciences Series journal is a peer-reviewed open access scholar journal that provides a platform for original theoretical/experimental articles and reviews in all areas of engineering sciences to promote the theory and practice between student, engineering, and academic communities. The journal's scope covers a wide spectrum of subjects including the following fields::

• System analysis, control and information processing
• Automation and control of technological processes and production
• Information, measuring and control systems
• Electrical engineering complexes and systems
• Electrotechnology and Electrophysics

Sections

Information Technology and Communications

Electronics, Photonics, Instrumentation and Communications

Energy and Electrical Engineering

Peer Review Process

The Journal publishes only those articles that have successfully passed through the evaluation process. All research and review manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal are subject to an obligatory evaluation procedure based on double-blind peer review. The evaluation procedure comprises the following steps.

1. General evaluation of the manuscripts

1.1. Within 10 working days of the manuscript submission, an Executive Editor performs an initial assessment of its compliance with the journal’s Aims & Scope and other technical requirements. Along with the initial assessment, each submitted manuscript is subject to plagiarism control (anti-plagiarism software “AntiPlagiat”, Russia).

1.2.  If any significant discrepancies are found, the author(s) will be notified and given the reasons for the rejection. The manuscripts rejected at this stage will not be peer reviewed again.

2. Peer review

2.1. If the manuscript is considered relevant to the Journal, it is sent to several external experts for peer review.

2.2. Reviewer assignments are usually made by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or Executive Editor.

2.3. The review process is conducted by the Editorial Board Members, as well as external reviewers, who are leading experts in the field and whose research activities align with the primary subject matter of the manuscript.

2.4. Peer review is provided free of charge and performed on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. The reviewer should withdraw an invitation if there is a clear conflict of interest that could affect the perception and interpretation of the manuscript material (reviewers should disclose scientific, financial, or other relationships with potential authors and editors of the Journal).

2.5. Peer review is conducted in accordance with a double-blind model, wherein the identity of the author(s) is concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.

2.6. A single-blind peer review model is applied for manuscripts submitted by Editorial Board Members (reviewers do not know the authors' identity, including their affiliations).

2.7. Reviewers are reminded that manuscripts sent to them are the property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers must refrain from any unauthorized use (including copying) of materials sent to them for peer review.

2.8. Within 14 days from the receipt of the manuscript, the reviewers should give a reasoned opinion on the possibility of its publication in the present form and present any remarks on the manuscript for its further improvement.

2.9. The purpose of peer review is to determine whether manuscripts are consistent with scientific standards. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed for scientific novelty and relevance, clarity and comprehensibility, and compliance with all ethical standards in the relevant field of research. Other objectives include promoting transparency, reproducibility, and data sharing (including proper registration of trials).

2.10. Peer reviewer's possible conclusion:

• the article can be published as it is and does not require serious revision (this decision is reached out after one or several peer review round(s));
• the article should be revised by the authors and re-evaluated in the next peer review round before a final decision is made;
• the article cannot be published due to poor quality, inconsistency with the requirements of the article design or the topic of the journal, ethical violations, evidence of falsification of results, or other reasons.

2.11. We provide all authors with access to peer-review reports. The Editor-in-Chief sends an editorial decision to the authors by e-mail, supplying with the peer review reports and further recommendations.

2.12. In the case of a negative decision, the Editor-in-Chief sends a message to the author with the peer review reports and the reasons for rejecting the manuscript. In certain cases, the rejected article may be accepted for reconsideration if all remarks and comments are adequately addressed and a rebuttal is provided. 

2.13. If the reviewer indicates that revisions are needed, the manuscript will be returned to the author(s) with the detailed  comments of the reviewer(s) attached to prepare a revised manuscript version. In the revision, the author(s) should respond to all questions, comments, and suggestions of the reviewers. If the author(s) disagree(s) with suggestions, the author(s) should clearly justify their position. The revised manuscript should be submitted to the Journal within 2 months of receiving the editorial decision. In the case of absence after this time, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the Editorial Board side. The revised manuscript and the author's response will be sent to the reviewers again for the next step of evaluation.

2.14. If the authors refuse to revise the manuscript, they should notify the Editorial Board to withdraw the article from the journal.

2.15. If the author's and reviewer's sides have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board Member has the right to send the article to another reviewer. In case of conflict, the authors have the right to appeal the decision of the Editorial Board. The appeal will be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision. An appeal can only be made once.

3. Editorial board evaluation and final decision

3.1. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publication of an article. The final editorial decision is made by the Editorial Board Members and the Editor-in-Chief, and in controversial situations only by the Editor-in-Chief. The Executive Editor will forward all manuscripts with positive reviews to the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief for review.

3.2. Once the Editorial Board has approved an article for publication, the Executive Editor informs the author of the decision and indicates the potential issue of the journal in which it will be published. The text of reviews is the obligatory part of these massages.

3.3. All approved manuscripts are subject to scientific editing, copyediting, layout preparation, and proofreading prior to publication. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit the submitted articles (including their titles). Before publication, the layout of the article will be e-mailed to the corresponding author in *.pdf format for proofreading to correct possible typographical errors in the text, tables, and figures.

3.4. Accepted articles will be published in the nearest issues of the Journal in the order of their receipt. The Editorial Board has the right to change the order of publication of articles.

4. Peer-review history and distribution

4.1 Peer review reports are stored in the editorial office for five years.

4.2. Information about reviews, including the texts of reviews and contact data of reviewers, can be transferred to the Scientific Electronic Library (Russia) and other systems of accounting and evaluation of reviews (such as Publons and ORCID) by agreement with reviewers.

4.3. All rejected and withdrawn manuscripts are placed in the Editorial Board archive, to which reviewers do not have access.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published 4 times a year.

Open Access Policy

• Read, download, and distribute the work.
• Adapt and build upon the work for any purpose, including commercial use.
• Share the work with proper attribution to the original authors and source.
  

• Increased Visibility: Open access articles are more likely to be read, cited, and shared.
  
• Global Reach: Researchers from around the world can access the content without financial or institutional barriers.
  
• Public Engagement: Open access supports the dissemination of knowledge to policymakers, educators, and the general public

Archiving

The journal uses the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) to digitally preserve all the published articles. The PKP PN is a part of LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program offers decentralized and distributed preservation, seamless perpetual access, and preservation of the authentic original version of the content.

Also, the journal makes full-text archives on the Russian Science Electronic Library (http://elibrary.ru/)  and Cyberleninka platform.

Author Self-Archiving

The Journal is compliant with Platinum Open Access mode for articles distribution. The Journal recommends that data (research data, raw data, processed data, algorithms, etc.) used in the preparation of a manuscript should be deposited in an available repository that allows their maximum reuse.

Indexation

The journal articles are indexing in:

1. Scholar.Google.com,
2. eLibrary.ru,
3. Russian Science Citation Index,
4. lens.org,
5. openalex.org,
6. scilit.net,
7. semanticscholar.org.

 

The journal is integrated in CrossRef and FundRef search systems.

The issue details are publishing in ULRICH’S Periodical Directory.

Publication Fee

The journal is published at the expense of publisher. The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs). The journal does not have article submission charges.

Authorship criteria

The authors of the publication are those individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, development, execution and/or interpretation of the results of the presented research, as well as to the process of writing the manuscript (including scientific and stylistic editing and formatting in accordance with the requirements of the journal).

The individual designated as the first author in the list of co-authors should be the principal investigator responsible for overseeing the preparation of the manuscript and should possess a comprehensive understanding of the scientific work. It is also expected that the first author will act as the 'correspondence author', assuming responsibility for communicating with the journal's editorial board and readers once the article has been published.

Those who have made significant contributions to the manuscript and the research may be included as co-authors. In cases where study participants have made notable contributions to a specific aspect of the research project, they should be acknowledged as having made significant contributions to the study.

The first author is responsible for ensuring that all participants who have made significant contributions to the study are listed as co-authors. Furthermore, the author must confirm that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper and agree to its submission for publication.

Publication ethics and related editorial policies

Journal's policies on authorship and contributorship

 

 Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported. In order for the authorship to be considered valid, the following criteria must be met:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published;
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

We encourage the authors to propose only one corresponding author for their article. The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal requirements, all registration documentation are fulfilled.  It is also possible that these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors.

Any further contribution details (e.g., equal contribution) must be included in the contributors or acknowledgement sections at the end of the article.

The authors confirm that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. Furthermore, we require confirmation that no other individual who meets the authorship criteria has been omitted from the list of authors.

 In the case of any discrepancy among authors, we adhere to the recommendations set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

How the journal will handle complaints and appeals?

 

According to the COPE recommendations (COPE Council. COPE Complaints and Appeals focus — English https://publicationethics.org/news/cope-education-subcommittee-focus-complaints-and-appeals) the handling complaints and appeals is to be conducted in a transparent, fair, and objective manner. This entails adherence to the journal's stated policy on handling such matters, as well as communication with all relevant parties, including the provision of information regarding the process to be followed and updates throughout the process. The use of neutral and professional language in all such communications is essential, as is avoiding all forms of conflict of interest in the investigation process, both real and, even more importantly, perceived. In some cases, this may require that the complaint is monitored by an independent oversight committee or other objective third party.

 

How the journal will handle allegations of research misconduct?

 

Research misconduct encompasses various aspects of unethical practices, including fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or the reporting of research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct under preparation and submission of their manuscript, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board Members will use the COPE best practices to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This includes an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction may be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If there is a possibility of scientific misconduct or other significant research irregularities, the allegations will be communicated to the corresponding author, who will be asked to provide a detailed response on behalf of all co-authors. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. In cases where misconduct is unlikely to have occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.

 

Journal's policies on conflicts of interest

 

All participants in the peer-review and publication process should consider and disclose all relationships that could be a potential source of conflict of interest (financial relationships (e.g., employment, consulting, copyrights, patents, or paid peer review, personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual convictions).

All authors have to disclose all financial and personal relationships that influenced or could affect their work, indicating it the Copyright Agreement and in the text of the manuscript:
- The presence or absence of a conflict of interest for all authors;

- Sources of support for this work (funding), including sponsors, if any, - also an explanation of their role in developing the research plan; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; drawing up a report; deciding on submitting a report for publication; or a statement that the source of support was not involved; 

Reviewers should not review 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 to the manuscript.

The Editorial Board Members should not handle manuscripts and make editorial decisions when there is a conflict of interest or relationship that may create a conflict of interest. Such cases include when the Editorial Board Member is a co-author of the considered manuscript or has collaborated with the authors in the past 5 years.

 

Journal's policies on data sharing and reproducibility

 

Authors may share their work after publication, but they must acknowledge that it was originally published in the Journal. The Journal recommends that data (research data, raw data, processed data, algorithms, etc.) used in the preparation of a manuscript should be deposited in an available repository that allows their maximum reuse.

 

Journal's policy on ethical oversight

 

The policy of the Journal concerns the oversight on how the ethical principles are observed is based on the mutual trust of the publication process participants and the hope for the obligatory observance of all the principles of publication ethics.

We focus on the СОРE definition, of Ethical oversight, namely “Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices”. Based on this definition, the Editorial Board of the Journal works under the issue of observing the ethical principles.

The Journal will be bound to consider the appeals from the Ethics and Oversight Committee for professional and scientific activity concerning the non-observance of the ethical principles by our authors. We are also ready to consider other appeals in case they are not anonymous and substantiated.

 

Journal's options for post-publication discussions

 

The correspondence provides access to the post-publication conversation. If any readers have any concerns about any of the published items, they can write a letter to the Editor-in-Chief. Errata, corrigenda, and retraction can be used to correct any errors or mistakes detected in the article.

 

Journal's policies on corrections and retractions

 

Changes in the article accepted for publication, which went through the stages of peer review and prepress (publication online first is included), fall into one of three categories:

Publisher Correction (Erratum),

Author Correction (Corrigendum).

Decisions about types of correction are made by the Journal's editors, sometimes with the advice of reviewers or Editorial Board Members. This process involves consultation with the authors of the paper, but the editors/ Editorial Board Members make the final decision about whether an amendment is required and the category in which the amendment is published.

Publisher Corrections (erratum) is published in case of an error (typo, missed change) introduced by the journal in production, which is significant and affects the understanding of the article by the reader. Corrections are not published for simple, obvious typographical errors.

Author Corrections (Corrigendum). If the authors consider it necessary to make corrections after the publication of the article (corrigendum), they are required to submit a written request (by email) to the editorial office of the journal, accompanied by a justification. The final decision on the publication of the correction (corrigendum) is made by the editors of the journal and members of the Editorial Board after assessing the impact of the change on the scientific accuracy and significance of the published article. In some cases, the identification of serious errors and inconsistencies in the published article may require retraction of the article.

According to the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Council. COPE Retraction guidelines — English.  https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 ), the withdrawal of the text from the publication (retraction) is possible to correct the published information and notify readers that the publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may be due to misunderstanding or intentional violation.

Retraction is also used to warn readers about cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, reuse of material or data without authorization, copyright infringement or some other legal issue (eg, libel, privacy, illegality), unethical research, and/or a failure to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines, the Editors of the Journal consider the retraction of a publication if:

• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
• Detection of incorrect overlaps (plagiarism) in the publication;
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorization for use
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (aka, conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.