About the Journal
Focus and Scope
The journal "Problems of Telecommunications" publishes scientific articles on the specialty of scientific specialties:
05.12.02 - telecommunication systems and networks;
05.12.13 - radio engineering and telecommunication equipment.
Main sections of the journal:
- system-wide telecommunication problems;
- mathematical modeling of telecommunication systems (TCS), networks and separate communication means;
- information security in telecommunication systems;
- Cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure objects;
- fault-tolerant networks;
- Fiber-optical communication technologies;
- electromagnetic compatibility;
- Internet of Things;
- processing of data and signals;
- Software-Defined Networks (SDN);
- design and optimization of telecommunication systems and networks;
- traffic management;
- cloud technologies.
Peer Review Process
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The peer reviewing procedure is applied for all articles submitted to the editorial board. The aim of the peer reviewing is to contribute to the strict selection of authors’ manuscripts for their publishing and introduction of specific recommendations regarding their improvement. The peer reviewing procedure is used for the maximum objective evaluation of the content of a research article, determination of their compliance with journal requirements, and supposes detailed analysis of merits and shortcomings of the materials presented in the article. Only those articles are accepted for publishing, which are valuable from the scientific point of view and contribute to solution of relevant problems and tasks. Separately, we consider the level of compliance with requirements for article preparation for publishing in a scientific journal (see Instructions for authors).
The primary objective of the peer reviewing process is elimination of cases of poor quality practices of scientific research and securing of conformity and observation of the balance of the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, and the institution where the studies have been conducted. The number and type of manuscripts submitted for the peer reviewing, number of reviewers, reviewing process and taking into account of reviewers’ remarks can vary.
The peer reviewing process of manuscripts is confidential. When submitting a manuscript for the peer review, authors trust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, which their reputation and career can depend on. Disclosure of confidential details of the manuscript reviewing infringes the authors’ rights. The editors do not provide information regarding the manuscript (including the information on its obtainment, content, reviewing process, critical remarks of reviewers, and final conclusion) to anybody except the authors themselves and reviewers.
Breach of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a claim on unreliability or falsification of materials; its observance is mandatory in all other cases.
2. PEER REVIEWING PROCESS
1. The author provides an article to the editorial board, the article should meet the requirements of the policy of the journal and the rules of the preparation of articles and scientific papers before publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the adopted requirements are not registered and not accepted for further consideration, and author should be informed about this. The manuscript is registered by the executive secretary in the article registration log with indication of the date of its receipt, title, full author/s’ name, author/s’ place of work. The manuscript is assigned with an individual registration number.
2. The executive secretary performs a preliminary evaluation of manuscripts received by the editorial board, correspondence of the content to the journal profile and subjects, send them for reviewing to editorial board members, scientific editors of the sections, specialists in respective subjects.
3. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are directed to the profile of research to one reviewer, and if necessary - to two reviewers. Reviewers are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. According to the Editorin-Chief (under certain circumstances) reviewers can be assigned by members of the editorial board. In some cases, the selection of reviewers determined on a meeting of the editorial board.
4. For the reviewing process, reviewers can act as members of the editorial board of the journal as well as external qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific area: Doctor of Sciences, Professors, as a rule.
5. After receipt of an article for review (within 5 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials based on his own skills under the direction of the author’s research area and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any conflict of interests, the reviewer should not review the article and should inform the editorial board about this. The latter should decide to appoint another reviewer.
6. The reviewer usually takes the decision on the possibility of publishing the paper within 14 days. Period of the reviewing may change in each case subject considering the creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of quality of provided materials but will not exceed 1 calendar month.
7. Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know each other. The interaction between author and reviewers occurs in a way of correspondence by e-mail through the executive secretary of the journal. At the request of the reviewer and in agreement with the working group, an interaction between the editorial board and reviewer can occur in an open mode (such a decision is made only if the interaction of openness will improve the style and presentation logic of the research material).
8. For all articles submitted for reviewing, the degree of uniqueness of the author’s text is determined using appropriate software, which shows the uniqueness level, sources, and the degree of similarity of the text (“eTXTAntiplagiate”, “Advego Plagiatus”).
9. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standardized form (review form), which contains a summary of recommendations. Editors notify the author about the results of reviewing by e-mail.
10. If the reviewer points to the need to make certain corrections to the articles, the article will be sent to the author with the offer to consider the comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them reasonably. Into a revised article, the author adds the letter, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes made in the article. The revised version is given to the reviewer again for the decision and prepare a reasoned conclusion about the possibility of publication. The date of the articles publication is the date of receipt of a positive conclusion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) by editorial office regarding the advisability and possibility of publishing an article.
11. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author is entitled to a reasonable response to the editor of the journal. In such a case, the article will be considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. Editors may submit an article for additional or new review to another expert. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the articles in the case of an impossibility or unwillingness of the author to take into account the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. At the request of the editorial board, the reviewer can give the manuscript to another reviewer with mandatory compliance with the principles of double-blind review.
12. The final decision on the possibility and advisability of the publication will be taken by the Editor-in-Chief (or on his behalf - a member of the editorial board), and if necessary during meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After deciding on the admission of articles for publication, the executive secretary shall notify the author and indicate the expected date of publication.
13. If a positive decision on the possibility of publication is received, the manuscript comes to the editorial portfolio for its publication in the order of turn and relevance (in some cases, by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of turn, in the nearest issue).
14. The final decision about the content of the printed articles is recorded in the protocol of the meeting of the academic board of the Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics, a respective note of which is placed on the second page of the journal cover.
15. The article approved for publication will be given to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections, which do not affect the content of the article will be made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscript as a layout will be returned to the author for approval.
16. Responsibility for copyright infringement and for failure of existing standards in article's materials relies on the author. The responsibility for the accuracy of the above facts and data, the validity of findings, recommendations and scientific and practical level of article relies on both the author and reviewer.
3. REVIEWER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
Reviewers give a review on a manuscript, which contains a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publishing after an additional revision taking into account remarks or does not recommend the article for publishing, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
The reviewer should review the received manuscript within the period agreed with the executive secretary and send the motivated refusal from the reviewing or the review to the editorial board (by e-mail).
The reviewers evaluate theoretical and methodological level of the manuscript, its practical value, and scientific value.
Besides, the reviewers determine the compliance of the paper with ethics principles in scientific publications and give recommendations regarding elimination of cases of their violation.
The reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are intellectual property of authors and are the information, which cannot be disclosed.
The reviewers are not allowed copying the manuscript given to them for reviewing or using the information on the paper content before its being published.
Reviewing is performed confidentially, when the information on the article (dates of its receipt, content, stages and peculiarities of the reviewing process, reviewer’s remarks, and final decision regarding acceptance) is not communicated to anybody except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only in the case of the presence of signs or a claim on unreliability or falsification of materials of the article.
4. AUTHOR’S RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The author of a reviewed paper have an opportunity to read the review text, in particular if he/she is not agree with reviewer’s conclusions.
If the case of a disagreement with reviewer’s opinion, the author of the article has a right to give a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. The article can be submitted for the repeated reviewing or for an agreement by the editorial board.
The articles sent to authors for corrections have to be returned to the editorial board not later than 2 weeks after their receipt. If the article is returned later, the date of its publishing will be changed respectively.
The executive secretary informs the author on the dates of publishing his/her article within no more than one month after the date of the receipt of positive conclusion regarding the publishing his/her article.
* WHY TO SUBMIT ARTICLES IN JOURNALS WITH AN ANONYMOUS PROCEDURE OF REVIEWING AND ARTICLE SELECTIONS?
Firstly, as a scientist and researcher, you seek to share the results of your studies with scientific circles, where scientists with an international reputation play an important role. When obtaining an access to international community, you can develop ties outside your country, deepen your specialization, contribute to development of your research as well as increase your personal status. However, the access to international circles supposes knowledge and compliance with international standards, which in particular include an anonymous process of peer reviewing and article selection.
Secondly, publication of articles in journals, which have an anonymous process of peer reviewing and article selection, aids in professional activity. It is clear that the career growth has its peculiarities in different countries. However, the researcher who seek to be recognized abroad has to know professional growth criteria used in other countries. One of such criteria is publications in journals with anonymous section of articles. Such publications are considered the measure of the status and confidence to you as a scientist and thus they define the possibility of your career growth. Thus, publications in such journals are necessary for an international career, otherwise your professional possibilities will be relatively limited.
Finally, an anonymous process of peer reviewing and article selection is a good way for self-development; it gives a possibility to get knowledge on other studies and developments. Moreover, the revised article give you is an opportunity to improve your own skills of article writing.
Publication Frequency
Journal published two number per year.
Open Access Policy
The journal Problemy Telecomunicacij provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Full-text access to scientific articles of the journal is presented on the official website in the Archives section.
This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access. The licensing policy is compatible with the overwhelming majority of open access and archiving policies.
The journal Problemy Telecomunicacij is an open access journal, which means all its content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author as long as they cite the source.
Publication Ethics
The Editors of the journal «Problemy Telecomunicacij» maintain a certain level of requirements for selection and accepting of the articles submitted by authors. These rules are determined by the scientific fields covered in the journal.
Drawing up the items of the publication ethics policy of the journal «Problemy Telecomunicacij» Editors followed the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org) and the experience of foreign professional associations and other Ukrainian and foreign research institutions and publishers).
An essential feature of professional scientific community is the acceptance of the moral code which sets the basic rules of behavior and the responsibilities of the scientific community members before each other and in relation to the public. Such a code is defined by the intention to ensure maximum benefit to the professional community and to limit the actions, which could serve the interests of individuals, as well as to ensure an author's intellectual property rights.
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF EDITORS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL JOURNAL
1. All submitted materials are carefully selected and reviewed. An editorial board reserves the right to reject an article or return it as requiring improvement. The author is obliged to improve the article according to the remarks of the reviewers and the editorial board.
2. An editor should considerate all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). 3. An editor should consider manuscript submitted for publication without delays.
4. The whole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of an article rests with the editor. Responsible and reasonable approach to the duty requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers, Doctor of Science of required specialty, as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if considered by the Editors to be inappropriate for the journal.
5. The editor and members of the editor’s staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. After a positive decision has been made about a manuscript, it should be published in the journal and in the website of the journal.
6. An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
7. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to other qualified person, such as a member of its Editorial Board.
8. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a report published in an editor’s journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by an original author.
9. An author may request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript. This might be the case, for example, when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the previous work of a potential reviewer.
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS
1. Main duty of an author is to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
2. An author should be aware that journal space is a limited resource and should use it wisely and economically.
3. A primary research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. When requested, the authors should make a reasonable effort to provide samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere, with appropriate material transfer agreements to restrict the field of use of the materials so as to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
4. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be made when these were supplied by a non author.
5. Any unusual hazards appearing during an investigation should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.
6. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study.
7. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be indicated.
8. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (a “communication” or “letter”) of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the editor should be made aware of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.
9. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated similarly.
10. An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, of the work of another scientist. When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism considered to be appropriate.
11. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.
12. The authors should reveal to the editor and to the readers of the journal any potential and/or relevant competing financial or other interest that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. All authors should not have any personal significant financial interest and employment or other relationship with entities that have a financial or other interest which can affect the results described by the manuscript.
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS OF MANUSCRIPTS
1. As the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
4. A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest.
5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.
8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind that complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
9. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.
10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. If this information indicates that some of the reviewer’s work is unlikely to be profitable, the reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work.
