- » Aims and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aims and Scope
Russian Technological Journal unites the opinions of Russian and foreign scientists on the problems of complex development of radio engineering, telecommunication and information systems, electronics and Informatics. The journal publishes the results of research in Russian and English. The purpose of the journal is to expand the cooperation of scientists from different countries and to bring information about world achievements in the field of information, radio and telecommunication systems, high technologies, micro- and nanoelectronics, as well as many other areas of technological sciences to a wide range of readers. The journal publishes the results of advanced research carried out in the institutes of Russia, CIS countries, Lithuania, Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and other countries.
Main headings of the journal:
- Information systems. Computer sciences. Issues of information security
- Multiple robots (robotic centers) and systems. Remote sensing and non-destructive testing
- Modern radio engineering and telecommunication systems
- Micro- and nanoelectronics. Condensed matter physics
- Analytical instrument engineering and technology
- Mathematical modeling
- Economics of knowledge-intensive and high-tech enterprises and industries. Management in organizational systems
- Product quality management. Standardization
- Philosophical foundations of technology and society
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Reviewed| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
Bimonthly
Open Access Policy
Russian Technological Journal is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, 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 more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer Review
1. All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of Russian Technological Journal are accepted for publication on the grounds of the results of the peer review thereof. It is a custom in the journal to provide a double-blind peer review by two independent experts. Members of the Editorial Board and Russian and international experts who specialize in areas close to those of the reviewed works are engaged for the purpose.
2. Manuscripts with all necessary supporting documents (see Authors guidelines) must be submitted to the Editorial Office via the submission form. In case of any enquiries, we recommend that you contact us by e-mail: seredina@mirea.ru. The corresponding author gets a notification by e-mail that the manuscript has been received.
3. The editor reviews the manuscript as to the conformance to the subject-matter of the journal, key requirements set to publications, lay out and format approved by the journal’s Editorial Board. Also the editor checks the manuscript for plagiarism/self-plagiarism by the Anti-Plagiarism system. Articles that fail to meet the profile of the journal or the formal requirements are rejected by the Editorial Board without any review.
4. It is the prerogative of the Editor-in-Chief to choose experts for peer review (the names of the peer reviewers are not disclosed). As rule, the review process takes to four weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
5. If the reviewer accepts the article for expert evaluation, he/she should inform the Editorial Board about that. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript, lack of time or experience in the area studied. In case of refusal to peer review the reviewer should immediately notify the Editorial Board.
6. The reviewer evaluates the relevance of research, compliance with the world level, scientific novelty, presentation and understandability of the article in general, comprehension of the topic area, and the validity of research results and makes comments on the need for corrections.
7. The reviewer’s report should provide one of the following recommendations (each decision of the reviewer should be grounded):
- to accept the article for publication in Russian Technological Journal;
- to accept the article for publication after deficiencies noted by the reviewer are corrected;
- to send the article for additional review;
- to reject article.
8. If the review has a recommendation to correct and finalize the article, the Editorial Board forwards the text of the review without the signature, the name, and the affiliation of the reviewer to the author with the proposal to take the critique of the reviewer into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute the critique argumentatively (either in part or in full). The finalized manuscript should have an attached letter of the authors to the reviewer with all the responses to the critique and explanations of the amendments made in the article. The article, modified by the authors, is sent for re-review. If the reviewer makes repeated comments, the article is again sent back for revision to the authors. After the final approval of the article by the reviewer, the article is transferred to the scientific editor of the relevant section. If necessary, the scientific editor can also make scientific and technical comments that should be corrected by the author. The authors will have to incorporate all the amendments necessary to be made from their viewpoint and make comments regarding all he critical remarks in a response letter to the Editorial Board. The finalized manuscript should be returned to the Editorial Board within a maximally short time.
9. Articles accepted for the publication are thoroughly edited. Minor amendments and corrections of stylistic, formal and editor’s list nature are entered into the article without the approval of the authors.
10. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts in the event of the inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the recommendations of the editorial board. In the event the authors refuse to modify the materials, they must notify the editors in writing of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 2 months from the day the review was sent, even in the absence of information from the authors that they refuse to revise the article, the Editorial Board removes it from the account. In such situations, the authors are sent a respective notice that the manuscript is withdrawn from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
11. If there are negative reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers or one review of its revised version, the manuscript is rejected without consideration by other members of the Editorial Board.
12. If the author and reviewers have insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional reviewing. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief at the Editorial Board meeting.
13. Will not be allowed for publication in a scientific journal:
- manuscripts containing previously published material;
- manuscripts prepared without complying with the rules for the lay-out and formatting of the articles;
- manuscripts whose authors do not fulfill the constructive critique of the reviewer or do not disprove it justifiably;
- manuscripts whose authors refuse to technical revision;
- a series of manuscripts, representing individual stages of uncompleted research.
14. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made at an Editorial Board meeting in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. The article not recommended by the decision of the Editorial Board for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. The message about the refusal of publication is sent to the author by e-mail.
15. A positive review is not a sufficient reason to publish an article. The final decision on the publication is made by the Editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in- Chief.
16. After the Editorial Board makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author about it and specifies the publication date. The date when the Editorial Board receives the final version of the article will be considered the date of the receipt.
17. The originals of the reviews are kept in the Editorial Board of the scientific journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the articles.
18. The Editorial Board of the journal does not keep manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned.
19. The order of publication is determined by the registration date when the manuscript is received by the Editorial Board. Works devoted to especially topical issues of science and also containing essentially new information, may be published out of turn by the decision of the Editor-in- Chief.
20. The Editorial Board does not enter into a substantive discussion and correspondence with the authors with regard to the method of writing and lay-out and formatting of scientific articles, and is not working on bringing the articles to the required scientific and methodological level.
Indexation
Articles in Russian Technological Journal are indexed by several systems:
Publishing Ethics
Russian Technological Journal is committed to promoting the standards of publication ethics in accordance with COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications). The Editorial Board of Russian Technological Journal takes all possible measures to stop violations of the editorial ethical standards.
Ethical principles of the journal editors and the Publisher
- The Editorial Board is liable for the quality of the research articles, takes measures not to allow inadequate actions on the part of the authors and reviewers, and oversees that norms of publishing ethics be complied with.
- The Editorial Board of the Russian Technological Journal has an exclusive right to accept a paper for publishing or to reject it.
- The Editorial Board is responsible for the scientific contents of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief may include additional editors during the decision-making process.
- The Editorial Board is obliged not to disclose information about the manuscript to all persons, except for reviewers, possible reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher. Unpublished data received from the manuscripts submitted for publication should not be used for personal aims or transferred to third persons without the written approval of the author. Information or ideas received in the course of editing and relating to potential advantages should be kept confidential and not used for gaining personal benefit.
- The journal editors are to study profoundly all the original information in a manuscript; however, they do not have any right to use it in pursuing personal goals. They can use such information only after an article has been officially published and in accordance with all the citing requirements.
- The Editor-in-Chief can reject an article before reviewing. The reasons are:
- the subject matters of an article do not correspond to those of the journal;
- a scientific quality of an article is obviously low;
- an article has previously been published in another edition;
- an article is not arranged properly;
- the editor has every reason to believe that the information in an article is plagiarism;
- submitted materials contain principle contradictions with ethical principles which the journal adheres to.
- The editor, together with the Publisher, should not leave unanswered claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, as well as take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights in case of a conflict situation.
- Editors should guarantee that published materials correspond to international standards of scientific and publishing ethics.
- Editors should guarantee high quality of materials published in the journal; they should as well publish corrections, explanations, or apologies in case of necessity.
- Materials published in the journal contain an author's personal view, which can be different from that of the Editorial office. Authors bear full responsibility for facts and data given in articles.
Reviewing ethics
- Any manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are considered confidential matters. The submitted articles must not be disclosed to any third parties, except those confirmed by the editorial office. Peer reviewers should not use any unpublished data of manuscripts for personal purposes. Information or ideas should be kept confidential and not used for gaining personal benefit.
- Peer reviewers should be obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the study results. Personal criticism of the author is inadmissible.
- The articles published or to be published in other journals are not accepted. The peer reviewers are obliged to inform the editorial office about any plagiarism detected in the article.
- Peer reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published previously should be supported by the correct reference. A peer reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work that is in the sphere of the scholarly competence of the reviewer.
- Any selected expert who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, or has a conflict of interests with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the articles, should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Author ethics
- Authors of a manuscript should provide reliable results of their research. Fabricated and knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
- The authors should guarantee that the results of the research presented in the manuscript are completely original, have not been published previously in other editions, and are not under consideration in the editorial offices of other publishers. The submission of the same paper to multiple journals is unethical and unacceptable.
- Borrowed fragments or statements must be made in accordance with the citation rules. Excessive borrowing, word-for-word copying, and plagiarism in any form, including unformed quotations, paraphrasing, use of images, figures, photos, tables, graphs, diagrams and any other graphic information without reference to the source or assignment of rights to the results of someone else's research, are unethical and unacceptable.
- Word-for-word copying of own previous works and rephrasing thereof is unacceptable. If elements of the manuscript have been published earlier in another article of the authors, the authors should be obliged to refer to the earlier work and specify where the essential difference from the previous work lies. Apart from that, the authors should identify the relationship with the research results and conclusions presented in the previous work. The editors recommend indicating in the list of references works that the authors have made previously, but self-citation should not exceed 30%.
- Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office should not contain scientific and technical data relating to state, official or commercial secrets. Authors should submit to the editorial office a document confirming the absence of closed information.
- When using any content which is in free access in the Internet, the authors should previously verify information on the owner of copyright and, if necessary, get an authorization to borrow his /her materials (reprint).
- Authors should first resolve all possible conflicts of interests related to copyrights and publication of the manuscript.
- It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who in a certain manner impacted the process of research; specifically, the article should provide references to the works which were relevant for the research process. The authors should clearly indicate in the manuscript information about the grants received, other sources of funding for the study, about all other forms of support, i.e. the facts that can be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
- Only individuals who have made a significant contribution to forming the idea of the work, development, implementation or interpretation of the submitted research may be regarded as authors of the publication. All individuals who made a relevant contribution thereto should be named co-authors. In instances when participants in the research have made a relevant contribution in a specific area of the research project, they should be named as individuals who made a relevant contribution to the research. All the co-authors should approve the final version of the work and agree to submit thereof for publication. It should be inadmissible to name individuals who did not participate in the research as co-authors.
- If an author detects serious errors or inadequacies in the article at the stage of the review thereof or after the article is published, he/she must notify the Editorial Board about that as soon as possible.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article in case of violation of these rules.
Founder
MIREA - Russian Technological University (RTU MIREA)
Author fees
Publication in Russian Technological Journal is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal does not have any Article processing charges.
The journal does not have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential 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 to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
Russian Technological Journal use native Russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in Russian Technological Journal, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public preprint websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in Russian Technological Journal we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
