Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

"Physics of Wave Processes and Radio Systems" is theoretical and scientific journal. The journal considers for publication original papers including but not limited to next disciplines:

- radio physics

- optics

- radio engineering including TV systems,

- antennas, high frequency devices and its technologies

- solid-state electronics, radio electronics components, micro- and nanoelectronics, quantum effect devices




Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process


All manuscripts are subject to compulsory at least one “double blind” peer review, and should to meet standards of academic excellence and Author Guidelines for manuscript preparing and submission.

Review should provide a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of work, and analysis of pros and cons of presented article.

Papers are reviewed by a number of both outside experts and members of the Editorial Board team, who are PhDs or Doctorates of Science, have enough experience in the field similar with presented article, and familiar with journal Editor Board requirements to published works.

Reviewer cannot work together with author (or authors) in the same institution or organization. Editor Board team seeks to prevent a Conflict of Interest between authors and reviewers.

Editorial board team defines the number of reviews. Chief Editor may request an additional review.

Editorial Board team determine the time of reviewing by taking into account conditions for provision of the fastest article publishing.

Journal does not pay for reviewing of submitted papers.

Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are registered. After Chief Editor confirmation article is redirected to members of Editorial Board.

Members of Editorial Board may review article by themselves or propose a reviewer, who is a specialist over reviewed article scientific field.

After reviewer appointment by Chief Editor and accepting of invitation by reviewer, the executive secretary sends to reviewer cover letter and manuscript.

Review is prepared according to recommended by Journal Review Form. It is send to the Journal by e-mail or by post service.

Editorial Board considers received review and then makes one of the following decisions based on the reviewers' advice:

  • accept without revisions (reviewers may specify minor revisions, including correction of typographical or bibliographical errors);
  • accept with minor revisions (if the author supplies appropriate responses to the reviewer's comments and questions (as specified) or/and if revised according to the reviewer's recommendations (as specified));
  • accept with major revisions / resubmit;
  • reject (for a reasons specified).

Editorial Board sends to the author reviewer's questions, comments and recommendations and invites the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached. If the author does not agree with revisions, he have to prepare detailed argue reply.

Resubmitted manuscript should be prepared not longer then two month till Editorial Board sent revision to the author. Resubmitted paper is subjected to peer review again.

Editorial Board does not release reviewers’ identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified.

Review without information about reviewer’s identity is provided to the author by e-mail or in print form by post service. The author should confirm receipt of review.

Author may prepare detailed well-reasoned dissent with revision, and Chief Editor makes decision about following manuscript resubmission.

If author agree with revisions, he may correct and change the paper according to reviews’ comments and recommendations and resubmit manuscript. Journal recommends to authors prepares cover letter with detailed well-reasoned reply to reviewers. The procedure of reviewing repeats once more. In this case data of paper receipt by the Journal Editorial Board is data of the last resubmitted manuscript version.

Paper can be accepted to publishing under minor revisions without manuscript resubmission by author, if revisions are minor and requires only Editorial Board corrections (like misprints, typographical or bibliographical errors) and author confirms them.

Content of Review

Generally the number of review pages is no limited, however the Journal recommends preparing review no more then 2 print papers.
Review may include estimations of the following criteria:

  • motivation or/and importance of study;
  • purpose/goal of study clearly stated;
  • previous researches is appropriately and completely sited;
  • information flows logically and smoothly through paragraphs;
  • each paragraph has a clear topic sentence;
  • results are presented in sequence that allows reader to understand how experiments/researches relate to each other and corresponds to announced purpose/goal of study;
  • references are papers that relate to the topic of this study
  • references are well integrated and utilized in the paper;
  • symbols and scientific names accurate and consistently used;
  • terminology/jargon is used consistently and correctly throughout the paper;
  • sentence structure is concise and clear with transitions between paragraphs;
  • figures and tables follow a consistent format, figure/table understood without referring to text section, legend information complete and accurate, all axes/columns etc labeled properly.

Review should include one of the following recommendations:

  • accept without revisions;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • accept after major revisions;
  • revise and resubmit;
  • reject (for a reasons specified).

Final Clauses

Editorial Board decides whether to accept or reject the article by weighing all views (both revision/revisions and detailed motivated author reply) and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.

Editorial Board does not discuss papers and reviews with authors.

All reviews are printed and keep in archive till five years.

Copies of reviews may be sent to Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation after receipt of the relevant request.


Open Access Policy

 All articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For more information, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/



The journal uses the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) to digitally preserve all the published articles. The PKP PN is a part of LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program offers decentralized and distributed preservation, seamless perpetual access, and preservation of the authentic original version of the content.

Also, the journal makes full-text archives on the Russian Science Electronic Library (http://elibrary.ru/) platform.


Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House

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 behavior 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: «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy».

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 program record «the minutes of science» and we recognize 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 «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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 «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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 «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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 «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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 behavior 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 behavior 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 «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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 «Fizika volnovykh protsessov i radiotekhnicheskiye sistemy» 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 specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies