Rules for submission, review and publication of the articles for the journal “Computer Science, Information Technology and Automation”

1. Articles (materials) are sent to the Editorial Board by e-mail:

2. The submission of the articles should comply with the requirements presented on the web-site of the journal at:

3. All scientific articles (materials) submitted to the journal

“Computer Science, Information Technology and Automation” are subject to mandatory review for their expert evaluation.

4. The Editorial Board determines the compliance of the article to the journal profile and submission requirements, and then it is sent to the first review of the responsible editor of the journal that defines the scientific value of the articles who assigns a reviewer closest to the scientific specialization or competence. The articles are reviewed by the Editorial Board members or recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.

5. The review period is 4 weeks. Depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer it may be prolonged.

6. The review is double-blind, i.e. the author and the reviewer are not dependent on each other.

7. If the review contains recommendations on correction and updating of the article, the Editorial Board Secretary sends the author the text with a proposal to prepare a new version of the article or arguments for its refusal. The new version of the article is reviewed again.

8. If the author and the reviewer have any unsolved contradictions regarding the article or the reviewer makes a negative conclusion, the Editorial Board makes the decision to send the article to another reviewer, or agrees with the reviewer’s decision.

9. The refused article cannot be reviewed again.

10. The Editorial Board of the journal sends copies of the review or a reasoned refusal.

11. After the Editorial Board has made a decision on the admission of an article for publication, the Editorial Board Secretary informs the author about the final decision and indicates the approximate date of publication.

12. A positive review is not sufficient ground to publish an article. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board considering the article validity and conformity to the scope of the journal.

13. The reviewed originals are saved in the editorial office for five years.

14. In order for the most complete and objective review of the article by the Editorial Board was developed a “Memo to the reviewer of scientific articles”, in accordance with which the reviewer should assess the level of the article in accordance with the following:

whether the relevance, significance or importance of the research are argued enough convincingly;

whether the aim of the research corresponds to the objectives and the main research problem;

whether the basic methods of the research and its implementation are fully described in the article;

whether the article is built logically: idea, relevance, final conclusions and perspectives in the research;

whether the author discovered new facts, features of processes, groups, institutions, etc;

evaluate the theoretical and practical significance of the work;

finally, the reviewer should conclude

a) on publication of the article without modification;

b) on publication of the article with modification;

c) on external reviewing of the article;

d) on rejection of the article.