Requirements for publications
Requirements for Material for the magazine "Ontology of Designing"
The journal publishes research results that match the research interests and topics of the journal (see page Scope).
Submitted materials are reviewed. External reviews, views and recommendations to be published – are welcome. The decision to publish the material takes the Editorial Board based on recommendations of the Editorial Board and the conclusions of the reviewers.
Publication Accepted papers in the journal – FREE!!!
The cost of one issue with delivery to Russia – 500 rubles.
Type of review: one-sided blind review
Requirements for Material for the magazine "Ontology of Designing"
The material should be prepared in MS Word. Language for publications: Russian or English. Recommended structure of the article, the format and style solutions are listed in the template, sample design, which can be downloaded from this links:
Form review article in the journal “Ontology of designing” can be downloaded here.
PREPARATION OF PUBLICATION IN THE JOURNAL “Ontology of Designing”
1) The author (or co-author on behalf of the author) is recorded on the journal’s website and sent to the editor article, prepared in accordance with the Instructions for the preparation of articles for the magazine “Ontology of Designing”.
2) Article, entered in the Register received a paper with a unique registration number, as the author reports no later than 10 days from the date of sending articles to the journal’s website.
Submitted materials are treated as private property of the authors and are qualified in the Editorial Board and the Executive magazine as the information is not subject to disclosure (as notified and engaged third-party reviewers of articles).
3) To review the basic procedures for Executive Edition provides a preliminary assessment of compliance with the contents of article topics and magazine-quality design submissions.
Editor in Chief the right to reject an article as inappropriate topics with notification of the journal’s 10-day period.
The author, whose materials were designed with significant violations of instructions for the preparation of papers on behalf of the executive editorial board may be asked to give clearance item in accordance with the requirements (the comments and recommendations for change of registration shall be communicated to the author in the form of notes to be added to article text file with using the Toolbar, “Review» MS Word) to its substantive consideration.
4) Abstract of article taken by the Executive editors to review, to each member of the Editorial Board for information and a proposal to become a reviewer to give private feedback and recommendations on this article.
5) Within 10 days from the date of registration of an article sent at least two referees from among the members of the Editorial Board who have expressed a desire to become a reviewer, or non-specialists raised in the article. In agreement with members of the Editorial Board of the article can be sent to outside reviewers.
Not reviewed articles, authored or co-authored by a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as articles reporting on recent scientific, technical, scientific, methodological and methodical council of scientific organizations and institutions of higher learning, and having a written opinion of the Council with a recommendation to publish . The presence of such a written report made reference in the title. The author is obliged to submit the opinion to the Executive Editor.
6) The reviewer, within 10 days make a determination about the possibility of publishing the article.
To review, use a specially designed form-form, which can be downloaded from the magazine (see above).
Reviewer recommended to work with electronic version of the article in the “Review» MS Word, you insert a file with the test article with estimates of their notes and comments on the content and design of the article.
7) Review shall be conducted confidentially. The author of peer-reviewed article given the opportunity to get acquainted only with its results.
8) If a review of the article there are indications of the need to fix it, the paper sent to the author for revision.
In the negative review by executive editorial article may be directed to additional review.
9) In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the magazine.
10) The final decision on whether to publish after review is accepted as chief editor.
11) Once the decision to publish the article the author within 10 days shall be obliged to pay for the publication, based on accepted rates in the magazine. Terms of payment are available on the journal’s website under conditions.
12) In the case of positive conclusion of the publication and its timely payment of executive editors determines the sequence of publications according to the order of receipt of articles and topics of the Journal.
The journal is published quarterly, and the possibility of publishing in the next issue of the journal is only in articles sent to the end of the first month of the quarter.
It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted
manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial
communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite
publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the
conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.