Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

Design ontology as a scientific direction within computer science & engineering includes: research of the conceptual apparatus and development of the thesaurus on its basis, analysis of criteria and models of the designed object, design methods and scenarios, collection and processing of information about the object as a system and its constituent elements.

Design ontology, as a section of artificial intelligence, investigates and seeks to formalise the knowledge of design subjects about the process of designing new or upgrades of already known artefacts, including knowledge about the design object itself, as well as a set of thesauri of the subject area, databases and procedures, algorithms for optimisation and accounting for design uncertainty.

The aim of the journal is to try to approach the "Creator's plan" within the framework of scientific discussion, to understand and explain the essence of the process of creation, development, self-organisation, modelling and design of the future through knowledge of the process of artefact creation, evolution and selection.

Objectives of the journal

• to unite the efforts of Russian and foreign scientists, focusing on the topical problems of design methodology and offering a platform for scientific discussions,
• to offer approaches, technologies, methods and algorithms for solving practical problems in various fields and spheres of design activity,
• to assist young scientists in understanding their responsibility for the development of modern technologies that ultimately design the future of civilisation.

Sections

APPLIED ONTOLOGY OF DESIGNING

METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES OF DECISION MAKING

ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING

PHILOSOPHICAL AND LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF DESIGNING

GENERAL ISSUES OF FORMALIZATION IN THE DESIGNING: ONTOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Peer Review Process

Responsibilities of the PEER-REVIEWERS

Contribution to the editorial decision 
The expertise of reviewers assists the editor in making decisions about the publication of a piece. Editorial interaction with the author can also improve the quality of the manuscript.

Responsiveness
Any reviewer who feels his/her own qualifications are insufficient to review the research presented in the manuscript or knows that he/she will not be able to write a review in a short period of time should notify the editor and decline the review.

Confidentiality 
Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They should be displayed or discussed with outsiders only with the permission of the editor.

Standards of objectivity 
Reviewing must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. 
Reviewers should clearly express their opinions and provide reasoning.

Obligatory references 
Reviewers should identify works that are close to the subject of the research under consideration, but not mentioned by the author. Any statement that a certain observation, conclusion or argument has been addressed in the literature should be accompanied by relevant references. The reviewer must also inform the author if there are similarities or overlaps between the work under review and other published work known to the editor.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest 
Classified information or ideas gained during the peer review process should not be disclosed or used for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts whose content is in conflict with their work as a result of a competitive, partnership or other relationship with at least one author, company or organisation related to the manuscript.

Publication Frequency

Quarterly issuing, 4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

The Publisher grants usage rights to others using an open license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International) allowing for immediate free access to the work and permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.

Publication Ethics

Publishing ethics

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.

Publication decisions 
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.

Fair play 
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.

Confidentiality 
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.

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 and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality 
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

Reporting standards 
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.

---