AUTHORS

The editors of the journal "Modeling, Optimization and Information Technology" (MOIT) adheres to the principles and requirements of the following organizations:

• Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ANRI) (http://rasep.ru)
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org)

1. Rights and Responsibilities of the Publisher

The editors of MOIT are fully responsible for any published material and compliance with ethical principles in relation to:

• readers of the journal;
• authors of articles;
• organizations sponsoring research and publications;
• reviewers of publications.

Responsibilities of Editors to Readers

• the editorial board guarantees that the information published in the journal is reliable and unbiased;
• the editors provide readers with information about the authors of materials published in the journal and about the institutions where the study was conducted;
• the editorial board accepts comments and suggestions from readers on improving the quality of the journal through the “Letter to the Editor” form;
• the editorial office considers complaints from readers regarding materials published in the journal and informs about the measures taken;
• when found appropriate, the editors send readers clarifications or apologies;
• in case of errors, the editorial board takes measures to correct or eliminate them.

Responsibilities of Editors to Authors

• the editorial board has the right to accept or reject articles for publication in the journal, based on the opinion of reviewers on its relevance, originality, reliability of the information contained in the article, and its compliance with the journal’s theme and the principles of editorial ethics adopted in the journal;
• peer review is carried out in accordance with the procedure for reviewing articles adopted by the editorial board;
• the decision of the editorial board is executed in writing and may be provided to the author for information purposes upon request;
• the members of the editorial board are not interested in accepting or rejecting the article, if a member of the editorial board abuses his position, this person is suspended from work in the editorial office, and the author presents apologies in writing;
• the articles are accepted only if there are sufficient facts in favor of acceptance for publication and are rejected only if there are sufficient facts for its rejection;
• the authors are notified of the reasons for rejection of articles and receive recommendations on article improvement;
• the authors are given the opportunity to appeal the editorial decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the article;
• the authors are provided with information on the rules for the preparation and submission of articles for publication on the journal website;
• the editors ensure compliance with copyright when considering applications for publication;
• the editors have the right to withdraw a published article in case of disclosure of facts that violate the journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editor.

Responsibilities of Editors to Organizations Sponsoring Research and Publications

• the editors are obliged to publish information about organizations sponsoring the research or publication.

Responsibilities of Editors to Reviewers

• the editors are obliged to publish information about organizations sponsoring the study or publication.

Editorial Responsibility to Reviewers

• the editors provide reviewers with guidelines for drawing conclusions on publications and a list of questions that the reviewer is to answer in the article reviewing process;
• the guidelines for drawing conclusions in the article reviewing process are written in the Review section on the journal website;
• the editors ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the work of reviewers, timely identifying cases of violations and taking measures to eliminate them;
• the editors draw up a conclusion on acceptance or rejection of the article, based on the opinion of reviewers;
• the editors do not use an open review system; the editors ensure the anonymity of the personalities of reviewers;
• reviewers are required to inform the publisher of their conflicts of interest.

2. Ethical Rules for Authors

• when sending a manuscript to the editorial board, the author signs the Offer Agreement between the editorial board of the journal and the author;
• by submitting an application for publication of an manuscript in the MOIT journal, the authors confirm that the publication is prepared in accordance with the Rules for Authors published on the journal website;
• the authors must comply with the legislation of the Russian Federation;
• the authors should understand that a manuscript can be rejected if the following facts are discovered: the paper is not in compliance with the Rules for Authors published on the journal website;
• the author’s refusal to follow the recommendations of the editorial board to correct the flaws in the design of the manuscript; the manuscript contains plagiarism or false data; research results have already been published in another edition;
• the authors are obliged to provide information on commercial organizations that supported the research or publication for publication in the journal, and on any other conflicts of interest that may affect the content of the manuscript;
• if the copyright material was written together with the co-authors or the translation of the copyright material was made together with the co-authors, the responsible author guarantees that he informed the co-authors regarding the terms of the Agreement;
• the authors have the right to appeal the editorial decision regarding publication.

3. Ethical Rules for Reviewers

The peer review of articles should be carried out in accordance with the Review section published on the journal website. Peer reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to highly confidential information. The disclosure of confidential details of manuscript review violates the rights of the author.

Peer reviewers respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.

Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a inaccuracy or falsification of materials statement. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for own needs or use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay; declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise; only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.

Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.

Reviewers should declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.

4. Conflicts of Interests Disclosure

There must be clear definitions of conflicts of interest and processes for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers, whether identified before or after publication.

If at least one of the authors of the article has conflicts of interest, this is indicated when submitting the manuscript. To resolve any issues and complaints related to possible violations of the principles of editorial ethics, a commission is organised by the editorial board of the journal. The chairman and members of the commission are selected from among the members of the editorial board by voting. The commission handles complaints from authors, readers, and reviewers.

The Editorial Board of the journal "Modeling, Optimization and Information Technology", while considering manuscripts for borrowings, checks the materials using the “Anti-plagiarism" system http://antiplagiat.ru/. The editors of the journal adhere to the ethics of scientific publications in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, (https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/plagiarism%20A.pdf). The recommended level of originality of the material presented is at least 80%.

Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in the journal.

1. Authors submit articles to the Editorial Board of the journal in accordance with the Rules for Authors on manuscripts submission for publication in a scientific journal.

Before preparation of application and sending documents to the editors, authors should carefully study the rules of preparation of the papers and other documents required by the publisher.

2. All the manuscripts are registered and assigned to the editors for internal peer review, including verification of compliance with the subject of the publication and submission requirements. If the article does not meet the qualification criteria for scientific texts, and a peer review revealed significant shortcomings in the content of the article, its linguistic style and arrangement, the editors send the author a reasoned refusal pointing out errors and omissions.

3. All articles accepted for consideration undergo mandatory “double blind” peer review. The tasks of reviewers include assessing the novelty and scientific significance of the work, the reliability of the research results, the content of the manuscript and the way of presentation, the correspondence of the manuscript title and abstract to its content, the identification of published works related to the research topic, which were not, but, in the opinion of the reviewer, should have been mentioned in the manuscript.

Members of the editorial board as well as external experts working in the scientific fields relevant to the topic of the article and not having obvious conflicts of interest with the authors of the work are involved in the review process. The reviewer is notified of the fact that the article is the intellectual property of the author. It is not allowed to disclose or otherwise use the content of the article before its publication. The review period is from 7 to 30 days from the moment the article is accepted for consideration; and it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

4. The review points to:

• correspondence of the article to the subject of the journal;
• compliance of the title, abstract and keywords with the content of the article;
• relevance of the topic;
• relevance force in the introduction;
• statement of goals and objectives;
• clarity of presentation of the main material;
• originality, reliability and practicability of the results;
• scientific novelty;
• statement of specific main results of the work and their relevance to the tasks;
• presence of conclusions;
• characteristics of the used literature sources (sufficiency, compliance with the subject of the studied subject area, modernity of the sources and their compliance with the world's best practices);
• comments on the article (if any).

5. The review can be composed in free format or on the basis of a template proposed by the editors. In the second case, a binary assessment system for evaluation of the listed characteristics of the article is used.

In case of a negative estimate for certain items, the reviewer is to provide comments or validate the decision.

6.Conclusive statement of a reviewer is defined according to one of the options:

• the article is recommended for publication (in the absence of any comments);
• the article is recommended for publication after elimination of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
• the article requires revision in accordance with the above comments and re-review (if there are substantive comments);
• the article is rejected.

7. If the review contains recommendations for accuracy and clarity improvement, the editorial board notifies the author providing the text of the review with comments and questions with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the paper or refute them reasonably (partially or completely). Finalization of the article should not take more than one month from the moment of a notification of the author about the need to make changes. The article finalized by the author is resubmitted for review.

8. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. The article can be submitted for re-review or for approval by the editorial board.

9. In case of refusal of the authors to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after three months from the date of sending the review, the editors remove it from the register. In such cases, the author is notified of the removal of the article from the register due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.

10. After the peer-review manuscripts are approved by the chief editor (or deputy chief editor), and, if necessary, at a meeting of the editorial board.

11. Manuscripts selected for publication are edited by the editorial board to improve accuracy and clarity to the required editorial standards adopted within the journal. Editor's alterations are consistent with the authors.

12. The article is published in the current issue of the journal.

13. The originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years. The editors undertake to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the corresponding request.

The journal "Modeling, Optimization and Information Technology" follows the Open Access Journals policy, providing access to articles published in the journal freely available to read, download and share (without registration).

The founder of the "Modeling, Optimization and Information Technology" journal partially pays for its publication. The author of the article pays the article open access fee, including its preparation for publication on the journal’s website, assignment of DOI international identification, placement of the article on the website and in the indexing and reviewing systems, archives creation in order to increase publications reliability and accessibility.

The payment fee for the authors is 400 rubles per page.

The payment option can be activated in the Author PERSONAL ACCOUNT after receiving a notification of a positive decision of the editorial board.