Review policy

GENERAL TERMS

All articles that have been submitted to the editorial board of the journal Telecommunication Information Systems and meet the requirements for the design of articles undergo double-peer review, which is aimed at providing an objective assessment of the quality of scientific articles. Only articles that have not been published previously are accepted for review. The author should not repeat his scientific publications in order to increase their number. 

 

The purpose of the review is:

  • determination of the scientific value of the research results presented in the article,
  • counteraction to pseudo-scientific activity,
  • preventing the danger to the individual, society, economy or nature that these studies may cause,
  • ensuring the principles of academic integrity, in particular by identifying and discouraging plagiarism and other forms of copyright infringement,
  • ensuring the honesty and transparency of scientific research and the inadmissibility of manifestations of fraud, in particular falsification of data, piracy and plagiarism,
  • coordination of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution in which the study was carried out.

Upon receipt of the manuscript of the article to the editor, all authors are warned about the review procedure.

The author can use the information from any publication, provided that he indicates the source and draws a clear line between his own data given in the article and other people. Borrowing for own publications of any texts, photographs, figures, tables, diagrams, formulas, etc. requires, in accordance with existing rules, the permission of the author and/or publisher and must have in the article relevant links to the source.

 

Review Method:

Reviewing carried by a double-blind review. The identities of reviewers and authors are hidden from each other throughout the review process. To ensure confidentiality, authors should prepare manuscripts in such a way that they do not reveal the identity of the author to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.

 

The following specialists are invited to review:

  • members of the editorial board of the journal;
  • third-party reviewers who carry out research on similar topics, have sufficient experience in the direction stated in the article, and, as a rule, have the degree of PhD, candidate or doctor of science;
  • third-party highly qualified specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in the specified scientific field.

The names and place of work of reviewers are not disclosed.

 

Reviewers informed of the following:

  • manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors;
  • reviewers are forbidden to make copies of the article submitted for review, or use the materials of the article before its publication;
  • the reviewer is personally responsible for the honest and objective evaluation of the article;
  • the reviewer must adhere to the principles of equality, actual validity and reliability: the principle of equality guarantees equal rights to participants in the review process, regardless of academic degrees and ranks; the principle of actual validity excludes biased criticism; reliability principle prohibits any distortion for the purpose of humiliation or discredited;
  • deadlines, review comments and final decision regarding publication is not reported to anyone other than the authors and reviewers, provides privacy.

 

REVIEW PROCEDURE

  1. The author submits to the editorial board an article that must meet the requirements for the design of articles. 
  2. The editorial board determines the degree of uniqueness of the author's text by checking for anti-plagiarism in the https://strikeplagiarism.com/ system (contract No. 42 dated 02/25/2026). Articles that do not comply with the principles of academic integrity are not allowed for further review.
  3. Chief editor and deputy editor appointed reviewer of research profile, which is described in the article.
  4. Reviewer receives an anonymous manuscript and accompanying standardized review form.
  5. From two weeks to three months from the receipt of the anonymous manuscript, the reviewer prepares a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article.
  6. Conclusion of the reviewer may have one of the following forms:
    • publish without changes;
    • publish after editing the article by the author;
    • publish after a significant revision of the article by the author;
    • reject article as a whole.
  7. If the authors agree with the comments of the reviewer, they can modify it and re-submit the article. In this case, the review procedure is repeated. The date of receipt of the article to the editor is the date of its submission after the last changes.
  8. The interaction between the author and reviewers takes place through the technical secretary of the scientific journal.
  9. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is taken in view of the resulting review of the chief editor or deputy editor, and if necessary - the editorial board meeting.
  10. All reviews are stored in the version in writing within three years.