- » Aim 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
- » Self-archiving policy
- » For Reviewers
- » Crossmark Policy
- » Data sharing policy
Aim and Scope
Latest updates: 16.02.2022
The journal publishes original and review articles aimed at studying the current state of world science in order to improve the efficiency of scientific research management in the field of computer science and information technology.
The main purpose of the peer-reviewed scientific and practical journal "Informatics" – is to present new significant results of scientific and practical research of scientists and specialists of Belarus and other countries in such areas as:
- theoretical foundations, models and methods of computer science;
- information technologies and systems in scientific research, medicine, industry, logistics, social sphere and government activities;
- computer networks, high-performance and distributed computing;
- mathematical modeling of objects, processes and phenomena;
- reliability and protection of information;
- information technologies for product and process design;
- robots, robotic and human-machine systems;
- artificial intelligence;
- digital signal processing, including images and speech;
- product identification systems;
- space informatics;
- intelligent information systems of living space (apartments, houses, regions).
The main objectives of the journal:
- publication of new significant scientific and practical results, methodological, educational and review materials of scientists and students of Belarus, near and far abroad;
- involvement of leading Belarusian and foreign scientists and specialists for professional discussion of the development of computer science and the use of information technologies;
- improving the efficiency of joint work of scientists and practitioners in the field of computer science and information technology at the international level.
Belarusian and foreign scientists and practitioners, as well as students of higher educational institutions working in the field of computer science and information technology are invited to publish articles in the journal.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
The journal provides direct open access to its content based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to an increase in global knowledge exchange. The Open Access Policy corresponds to the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) and means that articles are available in open access on the Internet. This allows all users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of these articles, scan them for indexing, transmit them as data for software or use them for any other legitimate purposes without financial, legal or technical barriers, except those that are inseparable from gaining access to the Internet The materials of the journal are available under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
This regulation regulates the procedure for reviewing author's manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Informatics".
The review is carried to select the most relevant, original, different scientific novelty materials, to improve the quality of published articles and ensure a high level of the journal.
The manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal are checked by the "Anti-Plagiarism" system. When identifying unauthorized borrowings, as well as with a low coefficient of originality of the text, the editorial board acts according to the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The article is registered in the editorial office of the journal, its accompanying documents are reviewed, the compliance of the scientific article with the profile of the journal is checked, as well as the established rules of registration and requirements for authors. After the decision of the Editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board the article is sent for review according to its scientific profile to one, and if necessary, two specialists.
All registered scientific articles undergo mandatory one-sided blind review (the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers, the reviewers know who the author is). The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.
The reasons for refusal to publish the journal are: inconsistency of the manuscript with the subject of the journal; lack of novelty of the results; non-compliance with the authorship and ethical requirements of the journal, plagiarism, falsification of data.
The review is carried out, as a rule, by independent experts - highly qualified specialists with professional knowledge and experience in the relevant profile, who have an academic degree and are not involved in scientific, financial or any other relationships with the authors of the article and the editorial board of the journal. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board, head of the editorial office. The manuscripts of the Editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board are reviewed exclusively by external reviewers.
The review of articles is carried out on a voluntary and gratuitous basis confidentially. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to information not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their own needs. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement about the unreliability or falsification of materials. The author of the reviewed work is given the opportunity to get acquainted with the text of the review.
The reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is a conflict of interest affecting the perception of the manuscript materials, or if the subject of the article does not correspond to his/her profile (detailed recommendations to reviewers can be found in the relevant section).
The terms of reviewing in each individual case may be changed taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided, but should not exceed one month for the initial decision-making. As a rule, within two weeks the reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the manuscript. If amendments of article material submitted, the preparation time for each subsequent review is no more than 10 days. The number of improvements and reviews is not limited.
If the reviewer decides to re-review, the author must make all necessary corrections and provide the editorial board with the final version of the manuscript with a cover letter to the reviewer within two weeks. In this case, the date of receipt to the editorial office is the date of return of the revised article. The date of acceptance for publication is the date when the editorial office receives a positive conclusion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the possibility of publishing the article.
In case of a negative evaluation of the article, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions. If the author does not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, he has the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal. In this case, the article can be sent either for review to another specialist and will be considered again based on several reviews from two experts, or for considering by the editorial board.
In case of a positive external review, the article is discussed by the editorial board, where responsible for the section editor presents the results of the review of the article. The editorial board approves the list of articles to be published in the current issue of the journal, and it also has the right to reject the article if questions arise on certain aspects, or send it for additional external review by appointing a reviewer.
The articles whose design does not meet the requirements for publication and the authors refuse to make technical revision, are not allowed to be published, as well as if the main comments of the reviewer are not fulfilled or there is no reasonable answers to the expert's opinion. The editorial board of the journal does not keep manuscripts that are not accepted for publication.
The author receives notification of the decision taken by the editorial board after its meeting within 5 working days. In case of refusal to publish, the author will get the reviews with reasonable explanation, this article is considered rejected and is no longer subject to review by the editorial board of the journal. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-chief.
Manuscripts sent to the authors for correction must be returned to the editorial office no later than two weeks from the date of sending the review. If the article is returned at a later date, the date of its receipt for publishing also is changed, the author is informed about this. In cases when the author does not return the article and does not inform of the decision, the editorial board removes it from the register. In such situations, an appropriate notification is sent to the authors about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
After reviewing the articles accepted for publication literary editing and layout are carried out in the editorial office of the journal, following the sending it to the contact author for approval. If the editorial board and the author have not reached a compromise on controversial issues, or there is no possibility of communication with the author, the editorial board has the right to reject the article or, with the consent of the author, transfer it to the next issue of the journal. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years.
Indexation
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
The journal "Informatics" is included in the List of scientific publications of the Republic of Belarus for publishing the results of dissertation research. Articles published in the journal are also indexed in Russian international databases:
- Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) on the basis of Science Electronic Library (elibrary.ru)
- DOAJ
- Google Scholar
- СОЦИОНЕТ
- WorldCat
- Research4life
Publishing Ethics
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
Compliance with the requirements of publication ethics in the preparation and publication of "Informatiks" applies to all participants in the editorial and publishing process - authors, editors, reviewers and publisher who create this journal. The editorial office of the journal monitors the implementation of ethical requirements, relying on guidelines prepared by foreign specialized organizations, associations and publishing houses, as well as the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP). The main documents on which the editorial staff of the journal is based are the development of the Committee on Publication Ethics, as well as the Declaration "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications" adopted by ASEP.
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: «Informatics».
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned «Informatics» is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the «Informatics» 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 (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of «Informatics» 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.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. 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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. 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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – 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 of «Informatics» and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. 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.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. 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.
3.6.2. 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.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be 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.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. 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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. 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.
4.6.2. 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.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. 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.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «Informatics» journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
4.8.1. 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.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «Informatics» journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of «Informatics» in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
In the journal "Informatics", articles authored by the Editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board and the editorial board go through all stages of reviewing in accordance with the Regulations on the procedure for reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication. The review of the scientific publications of the Editor-in-chief is carried out by external reviewers, who are engaged by the deputy editor-in-chief to ensure an impartial review of his scientific publication.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
The United Institute of Informatics Problems of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (UIIP NASB)
Author fees
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
Publication in «Informatics» is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Latest updates: 24.02.2021
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
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
«Informatics» use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Self-archiving policy
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
Preprint and Postprint Deposition Policy
In the process of submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in another scientific journal. When referring to an article published in the journal «Informatics», the publisher asks to post a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal. Articles previously published by the authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers are allowed to be considered.
Preprints
The editorial board of the «Informatics» encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.'
A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the «Informatics».
The author must notify the editorial board of the «Informatics» about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.
It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article, do not delete the preprint text.
Manuscripts Accepted for Publication
The editorial board of the «Informatics» allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
- personal website or blog;
- institutional repository;
- disciplinary repository;
- direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.
Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021, Т.18, № 4 of the «Informatics».
Final Versions of Manuscripts
The editorial board of the «Informatics» allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
For Reviewers
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
Scientific review is a collaborative process that allows to arrange independent evaluation of manuscripts submitted to a journal. The examination is carried out by scientists and specialists in the same field of research as the presented article. The evaluation and criticism obtained as a result of a review provides the authors with the opportunity for feedback to improve their work and, most importantly, allow the editor to evaluate the suitability of the article for publication in the journal.
The journal "Informatics" uses mandatory one-way “blind” peer review: reviewers know who the author is, while authors do not know who the reviewer is. The identity of the reviewer can be disclosed solely at his request.
The letter with a request for review contains a file with the text of the article, additional materials, if necessary, as well as the contact details of the editorial board and the deadline for submitting the review.
The terms of reviewing in each individual case may change taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided, but should not exceed one month for the initial decision-making. When finalizing the article, the preparation time for each subsequent review is no more than 10 days. The number of improvements and reviews is not limited.
In case if the review is not submitted in proper time the reviewer returns the article and another reviewer should be chosen.
The review is made in writing in one copy and sent by post mail or by e-mail to the editorial office of the journal.
Responsibility of reviewers
- The reviewer evaluates his employment before agreeing to the examination of the manuscript and agrees to the review only if reviewer has sufficient time to make a quality review.
- The reviewer warns the editors about the presence of a conflict of interest (if any) before starting to work with the article.
- The reviewer does not transfer information about the article and the data that it contains to third parties.
- The reviewer does not use the information obtained from the article for personal and commercial purposes.
- The reviewer does not draw conclusions about the quality of the article based on a personal relationship to the author.
- The reviewer uses only correct expressions and explanations regarding the article.
Reviewer Tips
Read the contents of the journal "Informatics" and the rules for authors.
Visit the journal's website https://inf.grid.by to get an idea of the content of the publications. This will help you to decide if the article in question is suitable for the journal or not.
See the guidelines for authors to check if the article meets the journal submission criteria (for example, topic, scope, and presentation).
The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the article (in particular, if the subject of the article does not correspond to reviewer’s profile). If refused, the reviewer may suggest other candidates as possible reviewers of this article.
Review requirements
The review must evaluate:
- originality of the article;
- correspondence of the article to the subject of the journal;
- relevance of the research topic;
- formulation of the research goal and clarity of its presentation;
- the validity of the conclusions;
- completeness of links;
- structure and accessibility of the presented material.
Essential questions to consider when reading a manuscript
- Does the article contribute to the expansion or further study of this topic?
- Does the title of the article correspond to its content?
- Does the abstract reflect the main content of the work and the results obtained?
- Does the keywords selected reflect the contents and is their number sufficient?
- Are abbreviations and other conditional letters explained in the text of the article at the first mention?
- Do the bibliographic descriptions of the cited literature correspond to the current state of the problem considered by the author?
- Does the article correspond to modern achievements (what is its scientific contribution) in the field of knowledge to which it belongs?
- Is the article accessible to the readers for whom it is intended, in terms of language, style, material arrangement, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas?
- Is the work completed? Is the material presented in a structured way?
- Should the article be shortened or the presentation form revised?
- Are there any plagiarism in the article - borrowing parts of someone else's text, quotations, tables, formulas, graphs, etc. without reference to the author and the original sources? Is it advisable to publish an article taking into account already published works on this issue? Does the article contain advertising information?
- What exactly are the positive sides, as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author?
Conclusion of the review
The conclusion of the review should contain one of the following recommendations:
- The article is recommended for publication in its present form.
- The article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer.
- The article needs additional reviewing by another specialist.
- The article cannot be published in the journal (if it is not suitable for publication in this particular journal, or if the changes that need to be made are too significant to continue to consider the article in its current form). In this case, the author can be offered to Resubmit the article after its revision.
Comments in the review
It is helpful to provide detailed comments in the review:
- comments should be written in a form that is understandable and suitable for transmission to the authors, in order to obtain clarifications on any unclear issues when finalizing the article;
- it is recommended to make suggestions on what the author needs to do to improve the presentation of the material, the quality of the general presentation of the article;
- be sure to confirm that the topic of the article is interesting enough and the volume of the article is justified;
- if it is recommended to shorten the article, then the author (s) would like to know which sections should be shortened;
- editing English language is not the task of the reviewer, but it will be useful to correct obvious errors if they hinder understanding of the meaning of the text;
- constructive criticism is encouraged; comments should be carefully formulated so that the author clearly understands what changes or additions should be made to improve the article;
- the volume of the review is not limited;
- if the article is returned to the author for revision, the reviewer may be asked to give a second review of the revised version of the article.
Note
When making changes to their article, authors are invited to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the first reviewer, who must confirm whether are happy agrees with the changes.
Crossmark Policy
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal «Informatics» is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document
Data sharing policy
Authors are encouraged to provide research data confirming their publications, but this is not necessary and will not affect the decision to publish.
Definition of research data
This policy applies to research data that will be required to verify the results of research presented in articles published in the journal "Informatics". Research data includes information obtained directly by the authors ("primary data"), as well as data from other sources analyzed by the authors during the study ("secondary data"). Research data includes any registered factual material that is used to obtain results in digital and non-digital form. These include tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, maps, processed and/or raw data.
Definition of exceptions
This policy does not apply to research data that is not required to confirm the reliability of the results presented in the published articles. Data that is not subject to disclosure can be transferred as follows: placed in research data repositories with limited access; previously anonymized. The author can also publicly provide only metadata and/or a description of how to access them at the request of other scientists.
Data repositories
The preferred way to exchange data is to use data repositories. If you need help choosing a repository for hosting data, you can contact the site https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org /.
Data citation
Latest updates: 20.12.2021
"Informatics" prefers to provide access to research data on the terms of free Creative Commons licenses. The editorial board of the Informatics journal does not insist on the mandatory use of free licenses when data is placed in third-party repositories, and does not claim ownership of the research data provided by the author along with the article. Questions regarding compliance with this policy are sent directly to the editorial office of the Informatics journal.
