05.13.00 Информатика, вычислительна

05.13.00 Informatics, computer science and management05.12.00 radio engineering and communications05.25.00 Documentary information05.11.00 instrumentation, metrology and information-measuring devices and systems03.01.00 physico-chemical biology (03.01.09 Mathematical Biology, bioinformatics)3. If the formal requirements of article publication manuscripts sent for review to the reviewer from the editorial board. The article can be directed to the independent expert. To review specialists who are not the authors of the article or other interested persons. The reviewer cautions that article is subject to the intellectual property of the author. It is not permitted to disclose or otherwise use the content of the article before its publication. Review deadline — from 7 to 30 days from the date of the adoption of article for consideration.4. The reviews is given: an objective assessment of the content and structure of the article; an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article; assessment of the scientific level of the material. In particular, the reviewer notes:-scientific novelty and originality of obtained results the author; -conformity of the branch of science, which presents an article;-adequacy of the source base to solve the problem; -observance of the rules of citation and use the results of other authors; -the adequacy of research methods used the object and the subject of the study, the adequacy and reliability of the figures given in the experimental data;-does the article structure disclosure of scientific content of the work; match titles, annotations and list of keywords, the content of the article;-stylistic peculiarities of, the correctness of the use of terminology, quality table and illustrations (if any);-match results and conclusions in the article suitably obtained experimental data;-other advantages and disadvantages of work.5. conclusion the reviewer is formulated by one of the following options: 1) manuscript is published (without comments);2) manuscript is published subject to the text of the recommended amendments (in the presence of minor observations);3) manuscript requires finalization in accordance with observations and re review (in the presence of significant observations);4) manuscript must reject (this reviewer is required to substantiate its conclusion).6. Review must be signed by its author, together with an indication of the places of work of the reviewer, his posts, the scientist ranks and degrees. Signature is certified by a seal, put date.7. Peer review is conducted anonymously. The author reviewed the work is given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the text of reviews in case of disagreement with the conclusions of the reviewer.8. based on the results of the review article can be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for print. Technical Secretary of the Editorial Board are notified the author about it. 9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editor of the magazine. The article can be directed to proofreading or editorial board for approval. 10. Decide whether to publish, after review, accepted the editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board as a whole.11. in case of a positive opinion of the editorship of the journal article for publication is under preparation, editing and trimming the text before the required editorial standards adopted within the magazine. Editorial revisions are consistent with the authors.

05.13.00 Computer science, computer facilities and management
05.12.00 Radio engineering and communication
05.25.00 Documentary information
05.11.00 Instrument making, metrology both information-measuring devices and systems
1.3.00 Physical and Chemical Biology (03.01.09 Mathematical Biology, Bioinformatics) 3 . In the case of compliance with the formal requirements of the publication of the manuscript paper is directed to review the reviewer from the editorial board. The article can be sent to the independent expert. By reviewing the specialists are not involved, who are the authors of the article or other interested parties. The reviewer warns that the article is the copyrighted property of the author. Not allowed disclosure or other use of the contents of the article prior to its publication. Term review - from 7 to 30 days from the date of the article for consideration. 4. The reviews given: an objective assessment of the content and structure of the article; analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article; evaluation of the scientific level of presentation. In particular, the reviewer notes: - scientific novelty and originality Our results; - compliance of the branches of science, on which is represented by the article; - the adequacy of the source base for the solution of the problem; - compliance with the rules of citing and using the results other authors; - the adequacy of the used methods for studying a subject of study, the sufficiency and reliability of the above in the experimental data - Does the structure of the article the scientific content of the work; matching titles, annotations, and a list of key words to the content of the article; - stylistic features of presentation, correct use of terminology, quality tabular and illustrative material (if any); - compliance with the findings and conclusions set out in the article, the problem, the experimental data; - other advantages and disadvantages of work. 5. Conclusion of a reviewer is formulated by one of the following: 1) the manuscript is recommended for publication (in the absence of observations); 2) the manuscript is recommended for publication, subject to the text of the recommended amendments (if minor observations); 3) the manuscript needs to be improved in accordance with the comments made ​​and re- review (if any substantive comments); 4) it is necessary to reject the manuscript (the reviewer is obliged to substantiate its conclusion). 6. The review must be signed by the author with an indication of the place of work of the reviewer, his position, academic titles and degrees. Signature seal, put the date. 7. Reviewers stay anonymous. Author of the book under review is given an opportunity to read the text of the review in the event of disagreement with the conclusions of the reviewer. 8. As a result of the review article may be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for publication. Technical Secretary of the editorial board shall be notified to the author about this. 9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer author has the right to give a reasoned response to the journal. The article can be directed to re-review for approval or the editorial board. 10. The decision whether the publication after peer review, adopted by the editor in chief (deputy editor), and if necessary - the editorial board as a whole. 11. In the case of a positive conclusion of the editorial board is preparing an article for publication, consisting of text editing and fine-tuning to the required editorial standards adopted in the framework of the magazine. Editorial changes are consistent with the authors.

05.13.00 information, computing and management

05.12.00 radio electronics and communications 05.25.00 documentary information
05.11.00 instrumentation, metrology and instrumentation and systems
03.01.00 physico chemical biology (03.01.09 mathematical biology, bioinformatics)



3. in the case of compliance with the formal requirements of article is sent to feedback a reviewer of the editorial staff.the article can be sent to the independent expert. to рецензированию were not specialists who are authors of articles or other interested persons. reviewer warned aboutwhat the article is the object of intellectual property rights of the author. permitted disclosure or other use of the content of the article prior to its publication.the review period from 7 to 30 days after the adoption of article for review.

4. the reviews are: objective assessment of the content and structure of the article; an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article;assessment of the scientific level of the material.
in particular, the reviewer notes:
- scientific novelty and originality of the results;
- line of the branch of science, which presents article;.- adequacy of thermal framework to address the problem;
- rules of citation and the use of the results of other authors.
- adequacy of methods used for research object, and the object of research, the adequacy and reliability of the work of experimental data;.structure of the article is the scientific content of the disclosure; compliance with title, annotations and list of key words, the content of the article;
- stylistic features of narrativethe correctness of terminology, the quality of the matrix based and graphical material (if any);
- line results and conclusions in the article stated objectives.obtained experimental data;
- other advantages and disadvantages of work.

5. conclusion рецензента is one of the options:
1) manuscript is recommended for publication (in the absence of observations).2) the manuscript is recommended for publication, subject to the recommended amendment (subject to minor comments).3) the manuscript should be improved under the given observations and re review (if there are substantive comments).4) the manuscript should be rejected (as this reviewer must justify your conclusion).

6. the review should be signed by its author, indicating the place of work рецензента, his position, academic rank and degree.the signature is authenticated by a seal date.

7. peer review is conducted anonymously.the refereed work is given the opportunity to review the text of the review in case of disagreement with the conclusions рецензента.

8. on the basis of reviewing the article may be rejected.the author aims to improve, or accepted for publication. the technical secretary as the author of this notice is sent.

9.in case of disagreement with the author of the article has the right to рецензента reasoned response to the editor of the magazine.the article can be directed to a second peer review or of the editorial board.

10. a decision on whether or not to publish, after review,is editor in chief (deputy editor) and, if necessary, the editorial board as a whole.

11.in the case of positive findings is being prepared for publication by the journal article consisting of edit and refine the text until the required editorial standards adopted within the magazine.editorial corrections are consistent with the authors.