Publishing house Radiotekhnika

"Publishing house Radiotekhnika":
scientific and technical literature.
Books and journals of publishing houses: IPRZHR, RS-PRESS, SCIENCE-PRESS

Тел.: +7 (495) 625-9241



Authors. Ethical Behavior

Requirements for Manuscripts and Guarantee

The Authors must provide credible progress accomplished on original research and objective discussion of its significance. The data underlying the work should be presented accurately. The work must contain sufficient details and citations for possible replication.

Fraudulent, knowingly false or erroneous claims are perceived as unethical and unacceptable.

This may be the reason for the rejection of the manuscript or refuting a published article.

Reviews and articles also must be accurate and objective.

The Author must not publish the manuscript, on the same study, more than in one journal as the original publication. Presentation of the same manuscript simultaneously in more than one journal is perceived as unethical and unacceptable. The Author shall not be required to provide to the other journal the previously published article.

The Authors shall ensure that they are submitting a completely original work. In the case of works or statements of other Authors, the appropriate citations, excerpts or quotations should be provided.

The Authors may be requested for additional or raw data relevant to the manuscript. The Authors should be prepared to provide public access to information of this kind, if that is practicable, and they should in any event be willing to keep these data for the appropriate period of time after publication.

Plagiarism in any form - from the presentation of someone else's work as the Author's one to copying or rephrasing of substantial parts of other people's works (without attribution) and to claiming the results of other people's research - is unethical and unacceptable. 

Permission to Use Materials

To transfer the article to the Editors, the Authors must first obtain the permission to use any material created by others. Violation of this condition will lead to certain difficulties in the evidence of the Authors of the material submitted for publishing.

The Authors shall provide or should be ready to provide written authorization for the use of such material at the request of the Editor or Publisher.

The article cannot be published if the Authors fail to obtain the following rights on the use of borrowed material: 

  • Non-exclusive right to reproduce the material in the article
  • Rights to use print and electronic versions of the materials
  • Perpetual rights to use the materials (e.g., the absence of temporary restrictions on the reuse of the material, for example, the one-year license)

The reproduction of tables, figures, or snippets of text (more than 400 words) from other sources is permitted, if the Authors:

  • Have received written authorization to use the materials in printed and electronic form from all persons with rights to texts, illustrations, graphics, or other material that the Authors used in the manuscript, as well as any minor adaptation of the material created by others.
  • Have informed the copyright Holder of the material on significant changes of the material used in the manuscript.
  • Have received written permission to use the material.
  • Have indicated the data source in the description of pictures and duplicated it in the reference list.
  • Have beforehand updated the information about the Owner of the copyright and received permission for the material borrowing (reprint), when using any material that is freely available on the Internet.


Primary Sources, Authorship and Conflicts of Interest

The Authors should refer to publications relevant to the submitted work. The data obtained privately (talk, discussion or correspondence with third parties) should not be used or presented without explicit written permission from the original source. Information from confidential sources should not be used without the express of written permission of the Authors of the works relating to such sources.

Only the persons who have made a significant contribution to the development of a plan of work, design, execution or interpretation of the study may be the Authors of the publications. All those who have made a significant contribution to the work should be marked as Co-authors. When study participants made significant contributions in a certain direction in a research project, they should be listed as individuals making a significant contribution to this study.

The Author guarantees that all participants, who have made a significant contribution to the study, are presented as Co-authors, and those who did not participate in the study are not mentioned as Co-authors, and that all Co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to publish it.

The Authors are required to disclose in their writings, the existing financial or other conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed in advance. The Authors are required to list all sources of funding for the research. 

Correction of Errors

In case, some significant errors or discrepancies are discovered in the publication, the Author shall forthwith in writing inform the Editor or Publisher and take appropriate actions to correct the errors or withdraw the publication. If the Editors or Publisher have received information from a third party that the publication contains material errors, the Author is obliged to retract or correct the paper as soon as possible.

Regulations on Reviewing

1. Review procedure and deadlines

  • Review is a two-way anonymous "double-blind" peer-review.
  • All copyright materials (manuscripts) are subject to "depersonalization" (removal of Author's affiliation) to be transmitted for review.
  • Review of manuscripts is ever carried out by highly qualified specialists (Reviewers), whose names are never disclosed.
  • Reviewers do not have the right to make copies of the manuscripts for personal research and submit a manuscript (or a part of it) for review to another person in accordance with the ethical standards and demands of the Publisher.
  • Review deadline for manuscripts shall not exceed 30 calendar days from the transmittal of the manuscripts to the Reviewer.

2. Requirements for review's content

  • The review should include an authoritative analysis and objective assessment of the manuscript.
  • The review should reflect the expert assessment of the manuscript quality, namely:

match of the manuscript contents its name;

analysis and assessment of scientific level, novelty, importance and relevance of the topic (problem); theoretical or an applied value of the work;

line of techniques used by the Author, recommendations and results of the study with modern achievements of science and practice;

reliability of the facts; full disclosure of the topic;

desirability and feasibility of manuscript tables, graphs, and other illustrative materials;

relating the Author's findings with the existing scientific concepts;

discussion and conclusions; the reliability and validity of the findings;

evaluation of the personal contribution of the Author of the manuscript to the study topic (problem);

compliance with the language, style and logic of the scientific nature of the manuscript; the presence of links on the used literature and other information sources; deficiencies, inaccuracies and errors made by the Author of the manuscript.

  • The review should contain a recommendation for the publication of the manuscript, to finalize (supplement, clarify) it or rejection of the manuscript.
  • The review of a manuscript, executed in written form shall be sent to the Publisher.

3. Submitting reviews to Authors

  • The Publisher shall send the review (core reviews) to the Author of the manuscript without specifying names, functional titles and affiliation of the Reviewer.
  • Upon receipt of a positive assessment of the manuscript the Publisher shall inform the Author of the manuscript of acceptance for publication and the planned date of publication.
  • If the review contains a substantial portion of criticism when the overall assessment of the manuscript material is positive, the material can be designated as a polemical one and may be accepted for publication in the journal as a scholarly dispute.
  • If the review contains recommendations for improvement (clarify, supplement, etc.) the manuscript shall be sent to the Author for revision, indicating the deadline by which the Reviewer's comments should be removed, and the manuscript should be improved. A modified version of the manuscript is to be sent for proofreading to obtain a qualified opinion on the further refinement of the publication or rejection of the manuscript.
  • When receiving negative reviews, the Publisher shall have the right to send the manuscript to further review, or send it to the Author for finalization, or reject it.
  • In case of rejection of the manuscript, the Author shall receive a letter indicating the reasons for rejection.

4. Conclusion

  • The Publisher shall keep the reviews for 3 years.


When is permission required?

As a general rule, written permission must be obtained from the rights holder in order to re-use any copyrighted material. Typically the rights holder of published material is the publisher or website owner unless it is explicitly indicated otherwise. Copyrighted material can include figures, illustrations, charts, tables, photographs, and text excerpts. Re-use of any borrowed material must be properly acknowledged, even if it is determined that written permission is not necessary.

We recommend checking the possibility of re-use of copyrighted material and, if necessary, obtain a permit, issued in accordance with the requirements of the copyright holder.

When is permission not required?

Written permission may not need to be obtained in certain circumstances, such as the following:

  • Public domain works are not protected by copyright and may be reproduced without permission, subject to proper acknowledgement. This includes works for which copyright has expired, works that are not copyrightable by law, and works expressly released into the public domain by their creators. (Permission would however be required to re-use the final formatted, edited, published version of a public domain journal article, for example, as this version is owned by the publisher.)
  • Open access content published under a CC-BY user license, as well as open access content published under other types of user licenses depending on the nature of your proposed re-use (for example, commercial vs. nonprofit use), may not require written permission, subject to proper acknowledgement. Permissions vary depending on the license type, and we recommend that readers check the license details carefully before re-using the material.
  • Creating an original figure or table from data or factual information that was not previously in figure or table format typically does not require permission, subject to proper acknowledgement of the source(s) of the data.


Procedure of reviewing scientific articles

1. Research papers, received by editorial board, answering the subjects of the journal, prepared in accordance with the requirements, undergo a peer-reviewing procedure.

2. In case of rejection of sending a manuscript to revision, author receives a reasoned reply.

3. We examine only previously unpublished manuscripts.

4. At author's discretion, external review can be presented when submitting an article. This does not exclude the usual procedure of reviewing.

5. Chief editor determines, whether an article answers the subject of the journal and meets the requirements, and forward it to reviewing to examination with PhD or ScD degree, who is a recognized expert on the subject of peer-reviewed material.

6. Reviewers are notified, that tall manuscript are the property of authors and contain information, that should not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles. Reviewing is confidential. Breach of confidentiality is possible only when there is a statement for invalidity or falsification of materials. In all other cases it's preservation is obligatory.

7. Manuscript is passed to a reviewer without any information about the authors.

8. Time constraints for the procedure of reviewing is defined by the chief editor, individually for each case. Maximum reviewing period (between the date of acceptance of the manuscript by the editor till the editorial board makes it's decision) is 2 months.

9. The following items are pointed out in the review:

a) a compliance of the matter of an article with it's title; 

b) an assessment of the relevance of the content of a manuscript; 

c) an assessment of the form of the presented materials; 

d) an appropriateness of publishing an article; 

e) a description of the advantages and disadvantages of an article. 

In the final part of the review of the manuscript, on the basis of it's analysis, clear conclusions should be given, whether the publication can be published as is, or there is a need for its revision or processing (with constructive comments).

10. If the review contains recommendations for editing and (or) finalizing an article, it is sent to an author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations in preparing a new version of an article or arguments to refute them. An improved paper is sending back for reviewing.

11. In a case, where the reviewer does not recommend an article to publication, editorial board may send back an article to be rewritten, taking into account the comments made on it, as well as send it to another reviewer. Text of a negative review is also sent to an author.

12. Manuscripts, which receives contradictory reviews, should be forwarded to an additional reviewing. If a manuscript receives two negative reviews, publisher has a right to reject the submitted manuscript immediately and not to publish it.

13. When a positive decision on publishing an article is taken, the author is informed. Text of a review is sent to an author via Internet.

14. Originals of the reviews are stored at the editorial office for 5 years.

15. On demand of the Ministry of Education and Science, the reviews are also sent to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry.

16. The editors do not undertake any obligation on time constraints of publishing the manuscript.

17. Not prescribed to an obligatory reviewing:

  • interviews and reports from the round tables, conferences, etc.;
  • news, information and advertising messages and announcements.

(for manuscripts in English)

1. General Rules

1.1. The paper contents is submitted in two copies (including figures, figure captions, tables, and references) and must have an overall number of pages no more than 10-20.

1.2. The paper should be supplemented with the following documents:

  • a submission letter from the scientific-technical council of the chair or the research institute;
  • an expert report on the permission for disclosing the paper contents to the press;
  • a signed cover letter from the submission author.

1.3. The paper must include:

  • index of Universal Decimal Classification (UDC);
  • full title of the paper;
  • initials and names of the authors;
  • name of institution (officially accepted abbreviation), where each author works;
  • e-mail of each author;
  • an abstract amounting to 70-120 words;
  • the informative abstract of the scientific article not less than 350 words (for Russian-language articles - in English, for English-language articles - in Russian);
  • keywords (3-10);
  • the paper text itself;
  • references;
  • brief biographies the authors.

2. Rules for preparing the paper text

The paper text must be prepared according to the following requirements.

2.1. The text should be typed using Microsoft Office. Page margins should be left on all sides of each page: 2.5 cm (bottom), 2 cm (top), 3 cm (left side), and 1 cm (right side). The following requirements must be observed in typesetting: double line spacing, regular type, Times New Roman font with a size of 12 or 14 pt. Pages must be numbered.

2.2. The abstract should be comprehensive and reflect correctly the paper contents: problems, research methods and results.

2.3. Keywords must include the notions and terms used in the paper.

2.4. The paper structure should include:

  • introduction (brief review of the state of the issue under consideration and statement of the problem to be solved in the paper;
  • materials and methods for solving the problem and the made assumptions;
  • results (basic contents of the paper, proofs of the presented propositions, initial and final mathematical expressions, experiments and calculation, examples and illustrations);
  • discussion of obtained results and comparison of them with the previous results;
  • conclusions (summary and recommendations).

2.5. The terms, measurement units, and notation conventions applied in the paper should be commonly used and included into the International System of Units (SI). Abbreviations should be defined the first time they are introduced in the text, except for the standard abbreviations of measurement units, physical, chemical, technical and mathematical quantities and terms.

2.6. Equations should be typed in MathType 6.0 and higher and in (or) Microsoft Equation using Times New Roman font with a size of 12 pt for lowercase symbols, 10 pt for indices and 9 pt for subindeces; indices and subindices must be clearly positioned.

2.7. Numbers of equations are placed in parentheses at extreme right; only equations referenced in the text should be numbered.

2.8. Tables are numbered in the order of their first citation in the text.

2.9. References to literature are given in the text in the order of their first citation in the text.

3. Requirements for preparing the figures

3.1. Figures should be incorporated in the text after the paragraph, in which the figure is cited for the first time. It is not recommended to place unnecessary details in the figure; text data, and notation conventions should be displaced to the figure caption with replacing them in the figure by numerals or letters corresponding to their designations in the paper text.

3.2. The figure originals with a resolution of 300 dpi must be submitted additionally as individual files: *.tif, *.jpg, *.bmp, *.png, and *.eps.

3.3. The figures obtained as a result of work with CAD- or other design software (NASTRAN, ANSYS, MATLAB, etc.) should be presented in formats indicated in 3.2 in order to use them for publication.

4. Regulations for the list of literature

4.1. Literature references (10-30 items) should be organized according to the following regulations determining the scope and sequence of the data to be indicated depending on the type of the cited literature:

  • for papers of journals: names of all authors, full title of the paper, journal title, year of publication, volume, issue, number, numbers of pages;
  • for books: names of all authors, full title of the book, place of publication, publisher, year of publication, volume in pages;
  • for dissertation autoreferats: name of the author, title, place and year of defense;
  • for preprints: names of all authors, title, title of publishing institution, cipher, number, place and a year;
  • for patents: names of all authors, patent title, number and class of the patent, date and a year of declaration and patent publication;
  • for Internet-based resource: full electronic address, allowing for access to the publication, and the date of citation.

4.2. If there are more than four authors in the cited work then, in order that all the authors be taken into account in the citation base, it is necessary to list all of them after the forward slash avoiding the “et al.” words.

4.3. The literature list should include references to urgent scientific works by domestic and foreign specialists, first of all, papers published for the last five years in the reviewed (indexed) scientific periodic editions.

4.4. It is not recommended to refer to materials of textbooks, educational books and popular scientific literature,

4.5. It is desirable to include no less than 10 references to scientific papers from journals in the literature list, avoiding the unsubstantiated self-citation.

4.6. The list of references has to include references to actual scientific works in the foreign indexed scientific publications (not less than 30% of total number of references).

5. Rules for preparing authors’ biographies

The author biography should include the following data:

  • name and first name, etc. (in full form);
  • academic degree;
  • academic status;
  • position;
  • amount of published works and the field of research;
  • title of the institution where the author works;
  • complete address of the institution;
  • contact information for communication with the author (telephone, e-mail).

To publish papers in the Publishing House Radiotekhnika is free of charge.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Peer reviewing is an essential model for our journals:

“Radiotekhnika” (Radioengineering);

“Antenny” (Antennas);

“Uspekhi sovremennoi radioelektroniki” (Achievements of Modern Radioelectronics);

“Elektromagnitnye volny I elektronnye sistemy” (Electromagnetic Waves and    Electronic Systems);

“Biomediczinskaya radioe`lektronika”( Biomedical Radioelectronics);

“Neirokompiutery” (Neurocomputers);

“Naukoemkie tekhnologii” (Science Intensive Technologies);

“Informatsionno-izmeritelnye i upravlyayushchie sistemy” (Information-measuring and Control Systems);

“Nelineinyi mir” (Nonlinear World);

"Tekhnologii zhivykh system” (Technologies of Living Systems);

“Sistemy' vy'sokoj dostupnosti” (Highly available systems);

“Dinamika slozhny'x sistem — XXI vek” (Dynamics of difficult systems -  XXI Century);

“Nanotexnologii: razrabotka, primenenie — XXI vek” (Nanotechnology: development and applications - XXI Century);

“Nanomaterialy' i nanostruktury' — XXI vek” (Nanomaterials and Nanostructures - XXI Century);

“Voprosy' biologicheskoj, mediczinskoj i farmaczevticheskoj ximii” (Problems of Biological, Medical and Pharmaceutical Chemistry).

It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.

The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

June 24, 2020
May 29, 2020

© Издательство «РАДИОТЕХНИКА», 2004-2017            Тел.: (495) 625-9241                   Designed by [SWAP]Studio