The scientific journal “Herald of Advanced Information Technology” (HAIT) – is an inter-national academic peer-reviewed publication
The mission of Journal is to serve the world academic community by disseminating new ideas and research results in the field of advanced information technologies (IT) and their application in various domains of science and creative human activity
The main goal of the editorial policy is the establishing a permanent platform for the promotion of advanced scientific IT concepts and practices in the global academic and business community.
The Editorial Board of the journal sets the following objectives:
- continuously improving the level of reviewing and editing articles submitted for publication;
- providing the published materials with the widest possible distribution in the world scientific community;
- expanding the opportunities for the dissemination and indexing of scientific papers in the world's major citation indexes
The journal publishes the results of original scientific researches
The journal's motto is: Developing ourselves, we are aimed at developing the scientific and academic potential of our authors
The journal's motto is: Developing ourselves, we are aimed at developing the scientific and academic potential of our authors
Editorial staff practices double-blind review
This process provides as follows:
- all manuscripts are first reviewed by editors, with the view of their compliance with the topics and requirements of the journal;
- after the decision of the editors, the submitted manuscripts are sent to at least two external experts working in the relevant issue areas. The manuscript passes a double blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers do not know each other;
- reviewers' comments are transmitted to the authors along with possible recommendations for viewing the manuscript. The editor informs the authors whether the manuscript is accepted such that it does not require revision, or the authors are given the opportunity to redo the manuscript and submit it again, or the manuscript is rejected
The journal is published 4 times a year.
Planning the issue of the journal throughout the year:
April 10, June 25; October 10; December 25th.
Manuscripts are accepted no later than 6 weeks before the publication of the journal.
“Herald of Advanced Information Technology”is an open-access journal. All content is free to view, read, download and print
Articles of this journal are published under the licence CC BY-SA
Articles are published and peer-reviewed free of charge.
Ethics of publications and unfair practices within this context
The editors of the journal “Herald of Advanced Information Technology” support a certain level of requirements when selecting and accepting articles submitted to the editors of the journal.
In developing the provisions of the publishing policy of the journal “Herald of Advanced Information Technology”, the editors were guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org) and the experience of foreign and Ukrainian professional communities, scientific organizations and editors.
An essential feature of the professional scientific community is the adoption by scientists and specialists of the code, which establishes the basic norms of behavior and the duties of community members in relation to each other and to the public. Such a code is determined by the desire to maximize the benefits for the professional community and to limit actions that could serve the narrow selfish interests of individuals, as well as to ensure the right of every author to intellectual property.
Ethical responsibilities of editors
1. All published materials are carefully selected and reviewed. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to modify the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the editorial board.
2. The editor must without prejudice examine all manuscripts submitted for publication, appreciating worthily each one, regardless of racial, religious, national identity, as well as of the position or place of work of the author(s).
3. The editor should, as possible, early review the manuscripts submitted for publication.
4. All responsibility for accepting or rejecting the manuscript lies with the editor. Responsible and balanced approach to the execution of these duties usually implies that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer - the doctor of science of the relevant scientific area regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts can be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal profile.
5. The editor-in-chief and editors should not provide other persons with any information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for those who participate in the professional assessment of this manuscript. After the editor’s positive decision regarding the manuscript, the article is published in a journal and posted on the relevant electronic resources.
6. The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
7. The responsibility and rights of a journal editor in respect of any submitted manuscript, authored by the editor himself, should be delegated to some other qualified person.
8. If the editor is provided with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should contribute to publishing of the corresponding message indicating this error and, if possible, correcting it. This message may be written by the person who discovered this error or by an independent author.
9. The author may require the editor not to involve some reviewers to reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to involve one or more of these reviewers if he feels that their opinions are important for the impartial reviewing of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example, in the case when there are serious contradictions between this manuscript and the previous work of a potential reviewer.
Ethical responsibilities of authors
1. The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate report on the study, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
2. The volume of journal is a limited resource. Therefore, the author is obliged to use it reasonably and economically.
3. The initial report on the results of the research should be sufficiently complete and contain the necessary references to available sources of information so that specialists in this area can repeat this work. If required, the author should make reasonable efforts to provide other researchers with samples of unusual materials that cannot be obtained in any other way; at the same time, appropriate material transfer agreements are adopted, limiting the use of such materials in order to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
4. The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive influence on the essence of the work presented, as well as those that can quickly acquaint the reader with earlier works that are essential to an understanding of this study. With the exception of reviews, the quotations of papers that are not directly related to this study should be minimized. The author is obliged to conduct a literary search in order to find and quote the original publications, which describe studies that are closely related to this message. It is also necessary to properly indicate the sources of the fundamentally important materials used in this work, if these materials were not obtained by the author himself.
5. The manuscript should clearly indicate any hazards and risks associated with the research.
6. Fragmentation of study reports should be avoided. A scientist who performs extensive research on a system or group of related systems should arrange for publication in such a way that each message gives a complete report on every aspect of the overall study.
7. When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor about the related manuscripts submitted for publication or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts must be submitted to the editor, and their connections to the manuscript submitted for publication should be indicated. The editorial board accept for publication in the journal only the original manuscript, that does not contain plagiarism, has not been previously published or sent to other publishers. In the case of using the results of his own research (in particular, the doctorate thesis or similar papers), the author guarantees 60 or more percent of originality of the manuscript submitted for publication (i. e. containing no more than 40% of borrowings from materials of other own works).
8. The author should not submit manuscripts that essentially describe the same results in more than one journal as a primary publication, unless it is a repeated submission rejected by the journal or recalled by the author. It is permissible to submit a manuscript of a complete article expanding a previously published brief preliminary report on the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor should be notified of the earlier paper, and this preliminary paper should be quoted in this manuscript.
9. The author must clearly indicate the sources of all cited or submitted information, with the exception of well-known. Information obtained in private, in the process of conversation, during correspondence or during discussion with third parties should not be used or quoted in the author's work without the express permission of the researcher from whom this information wasobtained. Information obtained in providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants, should be treated in the same way.
10. Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes provide a basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. Articles published in appropriate cases may contain similar criticism. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.
11. The co-authors of the article should be all those persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the submitted work and who share responsibility for the results obtained. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the “Thanks to” section. Administrative relations with this study are not in themselves a basis for qualifying the person concerned as a co-author (but in some cases it may be appropriate to note significant administrative assistance in the work). Deceased persons who meet the criteria set forth above should be included among the authors, and the note should indicate the date of their death. Fictitious names should not be specified as an author or co-author. The author, who submits the manuscript for publication, is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes all those and only those persons who meet the criterion of authorship.
In an article written by several authors, one of the authors who submits contact information, documents to the editorial board, and is in correspondence with editors takes responsibility for the consent of the other authors to publish article in a journal.
12. Authors should give the editor notice of any potential conflict of interest, for example, the consulting or financial interests of any company that could be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. Authors must guarantee that there are no contractual or property considerations that could affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript.
Ethical responsibilities of reviewers
1. Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, thus, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to perform a certain proportion of reviewing.
2. If the involved reviewer is not sure that his qualification corresponds to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he should immediately return the manuscript.
3. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the presented experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and also take into account to what extent the work conforms to high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
4. The reviewer must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when the manuscript in question is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If there are doubts, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.
5. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript, with the author or co-author of which reviewer have personal or professional contacts if such a relationship may affect the judgment of the manuscript.
6. The reviewer must treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. He should not show the manuscript to other persons or discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone's special advice.
7. Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that the observation, conclusion or argument has already been published should be accompanied by a corresponding reference.
8. The reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation of other scholars works directly related to the work under review; herewith it should be borne in mind that comments on the insufficient citation of the reviewers own research may look like biased. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities between the manuscript in question and any published article or any manuscript simultaneously submitted to another journal.
9. The reviewer must provide timely review.
10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript in question, unless authorized by the author. However, when such information indicates that some of the reviewers own research may not be effective, the reviewer’s termination of such work does not contradict ethical responsibilities.