Reviewing

Review Policy

All materials submitted to the editorial office are reviewed to select articles that meet the standards of the scientific collection "Information Technology and Security" .

Reviewing is carried out by members of the editorial board and independent experts in the relevant fields. Double-blind review is used (neither the author nor the expert knows each other).

The review process is carried out to assess the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its relevance, practical significance and scientific value. The manuscript is evaluated without taking into account the ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation of the authors in accordance with the COPE recommendations .

Experts take into account the following criteria when assessing the suitability of a manuscript for publication:

  1. Relevance: how relevant the manuscript submitted to the editor is.
  2. Content: Is the content disclosed in accordance with the purpose and defined objectives?
  3. Quality: Were the research results correctly presented and interpreted?
  4. Reliability: Is the research material presented reliable?
  5. Ethical principles: whether the research material is presented in accordance with ethical principles and whether there is no conflict of interest (see Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics Policy ).

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the scientific collection "Information Technology and Security" are checked using the StrikePlagiarism application to detect and prevent plagiarism.

Editorial board members are allowed to submit manuscripts that will undergo standard peer review.

Members of the editorial board do not participate in making editorial decisions regarding their work.

Manuscripts sent to reviewers are the intellectual property of the authors and are considered confidential information. Therefore, the review process is carried out under conditions of confidentiality, when information about the article (terms, content, review stages, reviewers' comments and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers (see Privacy Statement ).

 

Review procedure

For a qualitative assessment of scientific articles submitted for publication in the scientific collection "Information Technology and Security" , they are subject to mandatory review, namely:

  1. Each scientific article is subject to internal and external double-blind review according to a form approved by the editor-in-chief.
  2. Internal review is carried out by members of the editorial board of the scientific collection. The decision on the selection of an internal reviewer is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editors-in-chief.
  3. External review is carried out by independent highly qualified specialists in a specific scientific area of the thematic focus of the collection. The decision on the selection of an external reviewer is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editors-in-chief.
  4. Reviewing (revision) of a scientific article is carried out within two weeks. However, this period may be changed at the request of the reviewer (author).
  5. A reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is a clear conflict of interest to prevent influence on his perception and interpretation of the materials of the scientific article.
  6. Based on the results of internal and external double-blind peer review, recommendations are made regarding the publication of a scientific article:
  • accept without revision;
  • accept with modification (justified);
  • reject (justified).
  1. To finalize a scientific article, the author is sent the text of the review by e-mail with a request to take into account the recommendations provided by the reviewer or to justify their refutation. The finalized scientific article is reviewed again in case of significant changes.
  2. If the author is unwilling to finalize the scientific article (take into account the reviewer's recommendations; justify the refutation of the reviewer's recommendations, exceed the deadlines for finalization without requesting their extension), it is rejected with a reasoned response sent to him by e-mail.
  3. If there are unresolved conflicts between the author and the reviewer, the scientific article may be sent for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board of the scientific collection.
  4. The decision to publish (reject) a scientific article is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the results of internal and external double-blind review.
  5. The author of a scientific article is informed about the acceptance (rejection) of the scientific article after the editor-in-chief makes a corresponding decision.
  6. Reviews of scientific articles are stored in the editorial office of the scientific collection and are used exclusively for internal document circulation.