Peer Review Process


  • All submitted papers are peer reviewed in order to select the articles meeting the high standards of the journal "Radioelectronics and Communications Systems".
  • The review process is carried out by members of the Editorial Board and/or independent experts in relevant fields. In most cases, review procedure is double-blind when names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other.
  • All correspondence between reviewer and author is performed across the editorial office.
  • Reviewers evaluate theoretical and methodological level of the paper, its practical value and scientific significance.
  • All papers are checked for plagiarism by special programs.
  • The result of a reviewer is recommendation.
  • The manuscript can be sent for review to several reviewers.
  • Members of the Editorial Board are allowed to submit manuscripts which will undergo standard peer-review directed by the present editor-in-chief. Board members are never involved in editorial decisions about their own work.
  • Manuscripts that are sent to reviewers are intellectual property of authors and related to the information that remains confidential. That is why review process is held on the basis of confidentiality when information about the paper (terms, content, stages of review, comments of reviewers and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers.
  • If author disagree with a reviewer comments he may send a reasoned response.
  • The decision of Editorial Board about article publishing is final.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The purpose of reviewing in the journal "Radioelectronics and Communications Systems" is to maintain the highest ethical standards of research, according to which the reviewer should be familiar with requirements for ethics in scientific publications. The process of reviewing is aimed at improving the quality of published materials and overcome prejudice and injustice in declining or accepting articles.

Peer reviewers should:
  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner;
  • 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;
  • not 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;
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments;
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner;
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise;
  • recognise that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

In case of a conflict of interests, reviewer’s professional or personal ties with the author, which may affect the judgment of the reviewer, he/she must return the article, pointing to a conflict of interest.

Accuse of plagiarism requires the reviewers’ reasoned justification of their own comments. Any assertion of a plagiarism or biased citation should be accompanied by appropriate references.

If the reviewer hesitates about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, he/she should necessarily apply to the editorial board with the requirement for collective examination of the author's article.

The Journal requires the timely review and respect for the author as an individual.

Procedure for reviewing manuscripts

Manuscripts sent by the authors that do not meet the requirements for publication in the journal "Radioelectronics and Communications Systems" will not be considered. For all papers provided for review, to determine the degree of uniqueness of the text special software is used. Quoting is allowed in an amount not exceeding 30% of the total paper.

  • New manuscript is registered when its hard copy has been received by e-mail or on the official web-site (registration date).
  • All manuscripts are peer-reviewed.
  • Once a manuscript is submitted to the Journal "Radioelectronics and Communications Systems", it undergoes an initial prescreening by the Editorial Board in order to determine whether or not the paper fits the scope of the journal. If the Editorial Board finds the manuscript meets the Journal’s minimum standards for publication, the paper then undergoes the reviewing process.
  • By decision of the Editor-in-Chief individual articles of prominent scientists, as well as specially invited articles may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
  • The first stage is Face Control (FC), which is used for checking of new manuscripts (one month).
  • In the main reviewing phase, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor sends the received papers, without the name and affiliation of the authors, to two experts (in some cases more) in the author's field of study. The determined interval from submission to first decision is up to 4 months (1 month is FC and 3 months is reviewing). In case of conflict of interests, the Editor-in-Chief appoints another expert.
  • The review is recommendation of reviewer.
  • The electronic evaluation form used by reviewers contains a checklist in order to help them cover all aspects concerning the publication. In the final section of the evaluation form, the reviewers must include observations and suggestions for improvement that are sent to the authors, without the names of the reviewers.
  • The review for the manuscript send to the author in any way:
    • In case of positive review the manuscript passed to the Editor-in-chief of Editorial Board to make a decision about publication.
    • In case of revision required the author receive all review comments and suggestions of reviewers.
    • In case of decline submission the author receive a review with a reasoned refusal. In the matter of disagreement with the evaluation of the reviewer, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editor-in-Chief. The case will be discussed at the meeting of Editorial Board and the paper will be directed to additional review by another expert. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject papers in case of author's insolvency or unwillingness to take into account the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
  • The autor prepare necessary materials after receiving review:
    • a revised version of the manuscript and answer to reviewers in case of revision required (up to 3 months);
    • a reasoned answer if you disagree with a reviewer opinion;
    • if author does not reply within 6 months, the article is rejected by statute of limitations.
  • Revised manuscript is sent to re-reviewing.
  • The final decision for publication is done by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board based on the recommendations of reviewers and the scope of the Journal.
  • The final decision on the composition of the print edition of the Journal is approved by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal "Radioelectronics and Communications Systems".
  • The paper, approved for publication, undergoes technical editing. Minor stylistic or formal corrections which do not affect the content of the paper are made by the Technical Editor without the consent of the author. The galley-proof is sent to the author for approval.
  • The authors are responsible for the content of each article and copyright infringement as well as scientific and practical level, accuracy of facts and data, the validity of findings.