- » Aim and Scope
- » Journal Sections
- » Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexing
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Incorrect Borrowing And Plagiarism
- » Disclosure Policy And Conflicts Of Interest
- » Founder
- » Publication Fee
- » Preprint and Postprint Policy
- » Foreign Authors
Aim and Scope
“Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)” is aimed at the publication of actual applied and fundamental research achievements in the field of radioelectronics.
Key Objectives:
- provide researchers in the field of radioelectronics with the opportunity to promote their research results;
- expand the scope of professional dialogue between Russian and foreign researchers;
- promote the theoretical and practical achievements of Russian scientists in the field of radioelectronics at the international level;
- acquaint readers with international best practices in the implementation of scientific results;
- attract promising young specialists to scientific work in the field of radioelectronics;
- inform readers about symposia, conferences and seminars in the field of radioelectronics.
updated 18/11/2019
Journal Sections
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Frequency
6 issues per year (February, April, June, September, November, December)
Open Access Policy
The Journal provides immediate open access to all articles published therein on the basis of principles formulated in the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). This framework permits any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of the articles published in the journal, use search engines to crawl them for indexing purposes, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those indistinguishable from having access to the Internet itself. All content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
updated 18/11/2019
Archiving
Peer-Review
All manuscripts submitted to “Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)” undergo obligatory double-blind peer review. This type of peer review implies that neither the Reviewer nor the Author are aware of each other’s identity.
Order of Peer Review Process
1. Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by specialists having professional competencies and expertise in the respective field of knowledge, both by external scientists and Editorial Board members. The selection of Reviewers is performed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Secretary. Peer review is normally completed within the period of 1 month.
2. Reviewers are notified that manuscripts forwarded for review are the private property of the Author(s) and include confidential information.
3. The review is a confidential document, which is forwarded to the Author(s) without revealing the Reviewer's personal information.
4. Reviewers may refuse a review request in cases where conflicts of interest are present that can affect the perception and interpretation of the materials under review. Upon completing the assessment of the manuscript, the Reviewer makes one of the following recommendations:
- accept the manuscript for publication in its current form;
- request the Author(s) to revise their manuscript following the Reviewer's recommendations;
- forward the manuscript to another specialist for additional peer review;
- reject the manuscript outright.
5. In cases where Reviewers have recommended revisions, the Journal requests the Author(s) either to make the necessary revisions or present a reasoned argument as to why the revisions should not be introduced. The Author(s) are requested to make the required changes within a period of no longer than 2 months from the reception of the relevant email from the Editorial Office. Revised articles are sent out for additional review.
6. Authors are requested to notify the Editorial Board verbally or in writing if they decline to revise a manuscript following the Reviewer’s comments, thus withdrawing the manuscript from publication by the Journal. If revised manuscripts are not re-submitted after 2 months of receiving the initial review, they will be withdrawn from the publication process. However, the Author(s) of such manuscripts may then resubmit their manuscript and the Editorial Board will treat them as entirely new submissions. In such cases, the Authors will be forwarded a corresponding notification on the removal of their manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
7. In cases of disagreement with the opinion of the Reviewer, the corresponding Author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial Board of the Journal.
8. In cases where the Author(s) and the Reviewer encounter insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief may send the manuscript for additional review. The final decision regarding any conflicts arising during the peer review process will be taken exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief.
9. Positive reviews do not guarantee acceptance for publication, since the final decision on the publication lies exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.
10. Upon the decision to accept a manuscript for publication, its Author(s) will be notified of the scheduled period of publication. In cases where a decision is taken to reject a manuscript, its Author(s) will be notified by email along with a reasoned explanation.
Original copies of reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for three years.
Peer Review Form
The review should contain a qualified assessment of the manuscript. Special attention should be paid to the following aspects:
- relevance of the topic, scientific novelty and significance of the material presented in the manuscript;
- originality of the materials, absence of unattributed borrowings and account of Author's previously published works;
- correspondence of the applied methodology, obtained results and formulated recommendations with contemporary scientific achievements;
- quality of the manuscript design: structure, style, terminology; volume of the article as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
- quality of tables and illustrative materials and their relevance to the manuscript subject;
- credibility of the presented information; strength of arguments, hypotheses and conclusions;
- presence or absence of inaccuracies and errors.
The review should include recommendations on reducing or expanding the volume of the article or specific parts thereof, as well as a conclusion on the possibility of its publication (accept in its current form, recommend revisions, reject, etc.).
Reviewers should not upload the material/ manuscript or any part thereof into a generative AI tool ( even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability ) as this may violate editor ’s and/or the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the material/manuscript contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.
In the case of a positive review, the Reviewer should give reasoned recommendations on the advisability of accepting the manuscript for publication.
In the case of recommended revisions, the Reviewer should provide:
- a detailed analysis of the shortcomings, inaccuracies, incorrect definitions, stylistic errors, etc. contained in the article;
- practical suggestions on how the identified shortcomings could be addressed.
Negative reviews should contain clearly formulated reasons for rejection.
Reviewers are requested to sign their reviews and provide their affiliation, academic degree, academic rank and position.
updated 04/02/2025
Indexing
Articles in "Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
- DOAJ Seal
- Base
- Library of Congress
- WorldCat
- Ulrichsweb Global Serials Director
- Bielefild Academic Search Engine
- Research4life
- ResearchBib
- TheLens
updated 08/09/2023
Publishing Ethics
Section I. General Provisions
The Editorial Board of “Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)”:
- adheres to recommendations formulated by the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE) and the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) “Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications”;
- is guided by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-I on mass media, the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on copyright and international standards for Authors (Responsible research publication: international standards for Authors);
- prepares Authors’ materials for publication in compliance with the requirements specified in the Author Guidelines and the Copyright Agreement.
The present section defines the rules of ethical behaviour of the parties to the publication process, which have been developed on the basis of recommendations advanced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Before submitting a manuscript, Authors should carefully read the Author Guidelines and the present document to responsibly adhere to the rules described therein throughout the publication process. It is essential that no Author's copyright be infringed as part of the publication process.
The Journal's requirements are updated when necessary. The date of the last update is indicated on the Journal's website.
Section II. Ethical Code for all the Parties to the Publication Process
1. DUTIES OF THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND THE EDITORIAL BOARD
1.1. The Editor-in-Chief bears personal responsibility for all materials published in the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief takes all reasonable steps to maintain the integrity of the Journal by ensuring the quality of all material published therein.
1.2. The Editor-in-Chief must adhere to the following principles:
- seek to meet the needs of readers and Authors;
- strive to constantly improve the Journal;
- apply procedures to ensure the quality of publications;
- protect freedom of academic opinion;
- prevent commercial interests from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
- publish corrections, revisions or apologies;
- retract articles when necessary.
1.3. The Editor-in-Chief interacts with Authors according to principles of fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty and transparency. When taking a publication decision, the Editor-in-Chief has the right to discuss the decision with the Editorial Board.
1.4. The publication decision must be based on Reviewers’ comments taking the manuscript’s relevance, originality (novelty), significance, reliability and consistency into account. In certain cases, the Editorial Board may forward the manuscript for additional review with the purpose of ensuring a maximally objective assessment.
1.5. When the Editor-in-Chief takes the decision to reject a manuscript, a reasoned conclusion must be provided.
1.6. In order to ensure the integrity of scientific research in compliance with COPE guidelines, manuscripts will be rejected in the following cases: plagiarism in all its forms, partial duplication of previously published articles, submission of one manuscript to more than one journal, incorrect borrowings, breach of authorship.
1.7. In cases where inaccuracies have been identified in already published articles, the Journal shall publish a list of revisions in subsequent issues.
1.8. Works reporting only negative results may also be considered for publication in the journal.
1.9. The Journal shall publish the dates of manuscript submission and acceptance for publication.
1.10. Relevant information about funding sources supporting the research and the role(s) of the funding organisation(s) in the research shall be published in articles’ metadata.
1.11. The Editorial Team shall make every reasonable effort to collaborate with Authors during the publication process, including the stages of peer review and subsequent revisions. In some cases, the period of revision following Reviewers’ comments can be extended.
1.12. The Editors are responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of Reviewers’ personal information (names, affiliations, e-mail addresses, etc.). Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, which cannot be shown or forwarded to third parties not involved in the publication process. Information contained in submitted manuscripts cannot be used for personal purposes.
1.13. In cases where the Author(s) have already been informed about the acceptance of their article for publication, the Editors cannot change their decision without good reasons.
1.14. The Editors shall maintain effective collaboration with the Publisher such that the required quality and timely publication of accepted articles is ensured.
1.15. The Editors shall actively support the initiative of Authors, readers, Reviewers and publishers aimed at improving the quality of the publication process by suggesting updates to existing practices and preventing possible violations.
1.16. The Editors are responsible for organising double-blind peer review by independent and competent specialists in the respective field of research within a period of one month from the moment of receiving a manuscript. The Editors must ensure Reviewers’ and Author’s confidentiality. The peer-review procedure and requirements for Reviewers are formulated in the sections “Peer Review Order” and “Duties of Reviewers”. The peer-review order and requirements to Reviewers are updated when necessary.
1.17. A positive review does not guarantee publication. The final decision on the publication rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.
1.18. The Editors shall make every effort to properly acknowledge the contribution of Reviewers.
1.19. The Editors encourage constructive criticism of articles published in the Journal.
1.20. The Authors of criticised materials have the right to respond to criticism.
1.21. In the case of objective claims, complaints or conflicts, the Editors shall undertake all possible measures to protect the parties whose rights were infringed. If necessary, the Editors shall publish a list of corrections or revisions and offer public apologies to the scientific community.
For more detail:
Responsible research publication: international standards for editors
2. DUTIES OF AUTHORS
2.1. The publication of a scientific article is the final stage of a research project and an important step in the career of every scientist. Scientific publications are expected to provide a detailed and reliable presentation of the results obtained during a study. Publication affects the development of science and society not only by forming a basis for new research, but also by facilitating knowledge transfer. Therefore, researchers must ensure that their publications are honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced. Materials must be presented in such a way as not to mislead readers by selective or ambiguous presentation of facts.
2.2. New results should be presented in the context of previous studies. The work of other scientists must be adequately acknowledged. Reviews of previous studies should be complete, balanced and include all relevant information, regardless of whether the Authors support the hypotheses and interpretations given in the cited article or not.
2.3. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should present a maximally detailed report of the conducted research. Information about unexplained facts, conflicting data or data that contradict the theories or hypotheses supported by the Authors or research funders should not be omitted.
2.4. The research presented in a manuscript should be of a high quality and thoroughly executed. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should be written in an unambiguous and clear manner.
2.5. Authors bear collective responsibility for all the data presented in their article (facts, results, conclusions, theories, hypotheses, etc.) within the framework of the relevant legislation of the Russian Federation. The reported studies should have been conducted in accordance with the relevant ethical and legal standards.
2.6. Authors must confirm that the information presented in their article is credible, objective and not falsified.
2.7. Authors must confirm that their article is original, has not been previously published and is not under consideration by any other journal.
2.8. Authors should not paraphrase or partially copy their own or other scientists' works without providing proper references. Plagiarism in all its manifestations is unacceptable.
2.9. Authors should report the absence or presence of conflicts of interest with the publisher, sponsor, co-Author, printing house, etc.
2.10. Manuscripts should meet the requirements specified in the Author Guidelines.
2.11. The relationship between Authors and the Editors is based on the principles of confidentiality. Authors should maintain contact with the Editors during the publication process in order to avoid possible errors in the publication.
2.12. Authors should immediately notify the Editors of any errors or inaccuracies discovered in their manuscript. Authors should collaborate with the Editors to introduce necessary revisions in a timely manner, including editing of the text.
2.13. Authors cannot make significant changes to the manuscript after it has been forwarded to typesetting without good reason.
2.14. Upon completion of the peer-review procedure, the Authors of the reviewed manuscripts receive the Reviewers’ conclusions and recommendations. Authors should respond to the Reviewer's queries in a timely and professional manner.
2.15. Authors have the right to withdraw their article from the publication process, provided that costs determined by the Editors have been compensated. Authors cannot withdraw their article from the publication process after it has already been forwarded to print.
Authorship
2.16. In the bibliography, Authors should correctly indicate references to cited sources. Authors should not cite articles from other works’ bibliographic lists without their analysis. Authors should cite only those articles, which can be discovered and accessed.
2.17. The contribution of each co-Author should be properly acknowledged.
2.18. All co-Authors should be indicated without falsification. Guest-, gift- and ghost- authorship is unacceptable.
2.19. Authors should correctly indicate all funding sources.
2.20. In cases where the research was supported by a sponsor, clear information of his/her participation in the project should be provided. Funding bodies have no right to veto the publication of results that may have a negative effect on their products or work.
For more detail:
Responsible research publication: international standards for editors
3. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
3.1. Reviewers are responsible for conducting expert assessment of submitted manuscripts in compliance with the Peer-review order.
3.2 Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical principles:
- review confidentiality;
- constructive criticism;
- impartiality and honesty;
- efficiency (compliance with deadlines);
- disclosure of conflicts of interest.
3.3. Reviewers should refuse a review request if he/she does not agree with the peer-review order adopted in the Journal. In addition, a peer-review request should be declined in the following cases: the lack of relevant competence; inability to complete a review within a specified period of time; the presence of any conflicts of interest, which may be personal, financial, intellectual, etc.; the presence of any moral/ethical contradictions.
3.4. Reviewers should agree to review only those manuscripts, the subject of which falls into the scope of their professional expertise. Reviewers should have publications on related topics over the past 3 years. Reviewers should provide the Editors with accurate and truthful information about their professional knowledge and review experience.
3.5. Reviewers should recuse themselves from evaluating any manuscript whose preparation was conducted with their participation of any kind.
3.6. Reviewers should respond promptly to a review request, particularly in cases when such a review cannot be performed. Reviewers should not undertake to evaluate a manuscript if there is any doubt that they might not complete the review within the specified time period. Reviewers should notify the Editors if an extension of the peer-review period is required.
3.7. In cases where they cannot complete the review for any reason, Reviewers should notify the Editors and suggest possible alternative Reviewers.
3.8. Reviewers should immediately notify the Editors if any conflicts of interest are discovered during the peer-review process or when any other circumstances appear that could impede the formation of a fair and impartial opinion.
3.9. Reviewers should notify the Editors if they suspect any manifestations of plagiarism in the manuscript under review.
3.10. Reviewers should carefully read the manuscript under review, supporting materials and the Journal's peer-review form, requesting any missing information from the Editors. Reviewers should pay special attention to an analysis of the bibliography and make recommendations that the Author(s) should either include significant publications that were not considered or delete excessive publications.
3.11. Reviewers should provide an unbiased and objective assessment of the manuscript under review, without any national, religious, political or commercial bias. Reviewers should refrain from any personal criticism of the Author(s).
3.12. Reviewers should treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents, which cannot be forwarded to third parties or be used for personal benefit. Reviewers should never involve third parties in the preparation of the review, including their assistants, without obtaining the consent of the Editors.
3.13. Reviewers should provide reasonable conclusions. Reviews should be objective and constructive, aiming to help Authors improve their manuscripts. Criticism should be supported with solid argumentation and relevant references.
3.14. Reviewers should not try to contact the Authors directly without obtaining permission from the Editors.
4. RETRACTION
4.1. Retraction is aimed at correcting errors in publications and informing the readership about papers comprising erroneous data. Data inaccuracy may result from good faith or deliberate misconduct. Retraction is also used to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (i.e. when Authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism and concealment of conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use.
4.2. A retraction procedure in compliance with the COPE protocol is applied whenever the Editorial board:
- receives evidence of the fraudulence of the published information as a result of either Authors’ conscious actions or bona fide errors (e.g., non-intentional errors in calculations);
- receives evidence of multiple publications or multiple submissions;
- receives evidence or discovers incorrect borrowing (plagiarism);
- discovers that the presented research was conducted ignoring ethical standards;
- discovers serious errors in a published work (for example, an incorrect interpretation of the results), which casts doubt on the scientific value of the publication;
- discovers that authorship has been breached, e.g. when not all persons contributing the research were mentioned as co-Authors;
- discovers any violations of the publication ethics or concealment of conflicts of interest;
- discovers that an article has been re-published in another journal without the consent of the Author;
- discovers that the peer-review process was falsified.
4.3. The retraction mechanism can be applied only to published articles.
4.4. In cases where only a small part of the article (e.g., several sentences) was plagiarised, the Editors must take a decision either to publish a list of respective corrections or retract the article.
4.5. An article can be retracted at the official request of the Editorial Board or the Author.
4.6. Authors taking the decision to withdraw an article from publication should contact the Editorial office and provide a reasoned explanation for their decision. If the Editors agree to retract the article, the Journal shall perform the retraction procedure.
4.7. When the decision to retract an article is taken on the basis of an external request, the Editors shall inform the Author(s) about their decision. The Editors shall notify the Author(s) of the retraction formulation that would be placed alongside their article.
4.8. Upon the decision to retract an article, the Editors shall write a formal retraction notice, which includes reasons for retracting the article (in the case of plagiarism with indication of the source texts) and the date of retraction. This notice also indicates the persons requesting the withdrawal of the article. Respective notifications are published both in electronic and printed versions of the Journal. The title of the retraction notice includes the Authors’ names and the title of the retracted article.
4.9. Retraction does not imply deletion of the publication from the website of the Journal or corresponding bibliographic databases. Instead, a retraction note is published alongside the original publication.
4.10. Retracted articles are not deleted from the Journal’s archive.
4.11. In cases where duplicated publications are discovered, the editors of the respective journals shall discuss the situation and either
- retract the publications simultaneously from all the journals in which the manuscript was published or
- reach a consensus as to which journals the article will be retracted from.
4.12. In situations when the credibility of the published information cannot be confirmed by convincing evidence, the Editors may not retract the article immediately, but instead publish an expression of doubt.
4.13. Such expressions of doubt, as well as retraction notices, refer to the original publication and contain reasons for expressing doubt.
4.14. When more convincing evidence of the non-credibility or credibility of an article becomes available, the expression of doubt is replaced either by a retraction notice or by a statement of justification related to the expression of doubt.
Section III. Unethical Practices and Unethical Behaviour
1. BEHAVIOUR NOT COMPLIANT WITH SCIENTIFIC ETHICAL STANDARDS AND INTERPRETED AS FRAUD
1.1. Fabrication / falsification of scientific results.
1.2. Plagiarism of data, ideas or fragments from previously published articles (compilation).
1.3. Deliberate report of incomplete information in a manuscript, particularly when the omitted data may have had an influence on the formulated conclusions.
1.4. False use of statistical or other methods.
1.5. Intentional concealment of important details of the methodology applied during research.
1.6. Falsification of authorship (guest-, ghost- and gift-authorship).
1.7. False representation of the results obtained by other researchers (false citation).
1.8. Self-plagiarism and duplicate publications.
1.9. Inappropriate handling of research objects.
1.10. Collusion to artificially increase citation.
1.11. Offer of agency services: correspondence with editors and revision of articles on behalf of the Author.
1.12. The submission of manuscripts to other journals by editors without the consent of the authors.
1.13. The transfer by editors or reviewers of authors' materials to third parties.
1.14. All kinds of manipulations with citation (artificial increase of scientometric indices, excessive self-citation, gift citation).
1.15. Submission of the same text to several journals simultaneously.
1.16. All kinds of falsification and fabrication of digital images.
2. INCORRECT BORROWING AND PLAGIARISM
3. DISCLOSURE POLICY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
updated 08/09/2023
Incorrect Borrowing And Plagiarism
Plagiarism may take various forms, including:
- use of any textual or illustrative material published elsewhere without specifying the source of borrowing;
- use of any textual or illustrative material published elsewhere without written permission of the copyright holder (if the material cannot be used without such a consent);
- incomplete or incorrect indication of the source with the purpose of impeding its identification;
All the manuscripts submitted “Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)” are checked for incorrect borrowings using the system Antiplagiat. Suspected cases of misconduct will be dealt with in accordance with COPE algorithms.
updated 08/09/2023
Disclosure Policy And Conflicts Of Interest
1. Authors must declare any potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest by providing this information in the appropriate subsection of the article.
2. Data contained in manuscripts submitted for consideration and peer review cannot be used for personal purposes without the Author(s)’ written consent.
3. Reviewers should declare any potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) prior to agreeing to review a manuscript including any relationship with the Author that may potentially bias their review.
4. Information or ideas obtained during peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal benefit.
5. The editor (editorial staff member) must refuse from handling a manuscript and transfer it to another editorial staff member in the event of a conflict of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relations with any of the Authors or organisation associated with the described research.
updated 08/09/2023
Founder
- Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University
Publication Fee
Publication in “Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)” is free. The Journal does not charge Authors for the preparation and publication of their articles.
Preprint and Postprint Policy
In the process of submitting an article, the Author(s) must confirm that the article has not been published or accepted for publication in another scientific journal.
When citing an article published in “Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)” please indicate the article’s DOI. For convenience, all articles published in the Journal contain information “For citation”.
Prior to acceptance and publication in “Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics (Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Rossii. Radioelektronika)”, Authors are allowed to make their manuscripts available as preprints on personal or public websites.
updated 08/09/2023
