Aim and Scope

The purpose of the journal "Information and Innovations" is to widely exchange scientific and technical information, the results of research and development of specialists working in various fields of science and technology, scientific and technical information, economics, education, and business in Russia and abroad. The editorial policy of the journal is aimed at implementing the main objectives

• information support for international cooperation in the fields of science, technology and business
• creation of a communication platform for the formation of sustainable international relations and expansion of cooperation in the field of science and innovation
• coverage of the best world practices of organizing research and innovation activities.

Section Policies

Information processes

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Economy and Innovations

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ICSTI: Events, Information, Opinions

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Technologies and High-Tech Products

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

METHODICAL RECOMMENDATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ICSTI: Current Events

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

International Cooperation

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ОТ РЕДАКЦИИ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

BOOK REVIEW

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENTOMETRICS AND BIBLIOMETRICS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EXPERT MATERIALS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ICSTI: EVENTS, INFORMATION, OPINIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

"Information and Innovations" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office of Information and Innovations.

1. Members of the Editorial Board and experts in the article’s corresponding areas invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Timescales of peer reviewing are defined separately for each article for highest possible fast publication of the article. They should be sufficient for deep analysis of submitted material and are pre-agreed with the author.

We aim to limit the review process to 4-8 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.

With the consideration of the declared research subject the article is sent to the specialist who determines:

• subject area compliance
• relevance and scientific novelty
• reliability and validity of results
• compliance of the article content with the declared title of the subject;
• the validity of research methods, structure and content
• quality of article design: style, terminology and its conformity to the accepted in the field of knowledge

2. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the Editorial Board with one of the following recommendations:
   a) to accept the paper in its present state;
   b) to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
   c) that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
   d) to reject the manuscript outright.
3. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the Editorial Office would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 1 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for second review.
4. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial office is authorized to send the article for additional review. The Editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
5. The editor-in-chief reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The Editorial Office does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
6. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the Editor-in-chief.
7. After the decision made by the Editorial Board on admission of article Executive Secretary informs the author and notes the date of publication.
8. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Information and Innovations" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

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: "Information and Innovations"

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 programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise 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 "Information and Innovations" 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 "Information and Innovations" 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 "Information and Innovations" 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 "Information and Innovations" 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.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

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 "Information and Innovations" 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 "Information and Innovations" 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 "Information and Innovations" 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.

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 specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).

Founder

• International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information (ICSTI)

Author fees

Publication in "Information and Innovations" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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

"Information and Innovations" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Information and Innovations", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Information and Innovations" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of an article

In connection with the spreading practice of using programs based on artificial intelligence, including in the preparation and writing of scientific articles, the editorial board of the Information and Innovations considers it necessary to focus the authors' attention on the following provisions.

1. Chat-bots such as ChatGPT (and similar ones) can under no circumstances be listed as the author of the article or a person who contributed to the preparation of the article. Artificial intelligence-based programs and tools do not meet the requirements of authorship because they are not (and cannot be) responsible for the research submitted, cannot declare the presence and absence of conflicts of interest, and cannot manage copyright.
2. The use of chatbots or other artificial intelligence-based programs is NOT ALLOWED when writing the TEXT of the article and METADATA or for generating illustrations. In some cases, such programs may be useful for text     editing, searching for additional sources of literature, data collection and analysis. However, it should be considered that chatbots often transmit false information to the user (literally "invent" non-existent facts and links to publications that never existed), so authors should check the information received from chatbots.
3. If a program based on artificial intelligence was used for editing the text, searching for additional sources of literature, collecting and analyzing data, it is necessary to indicate this information in the article. Always indicate the version of the program and the date of use.
4. Only the author is responsible for the final text of the article submitted to the Information and Innovations, regardless of which artificial intelligence-based programs and to what extent was used.
5. The Editors of the Information and Innovations uses the Anti-Plagiarism module, which allows to detect the generated text.
6. Editors and reviewers cannot share confidential manuscript information with the generative AI chatbot.

Information and Innovations shares the position of the international publishing community regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of scientific articles, as stated in the following documents: Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts (WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications);  Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making.