Aims and Scope

The journal publishes original scientific papers and reviews on a wide range of problems in the area of artificial intelligence and decision making, their practical applications. Subjects include but are not limited to the following topics.

• Knowledge Representation
• Reasoning Logics and Automation
• Computational Intelligence
• AI-enabled Systems
• Intelligent Systems and Robots
• Decision Analysis
• Optimal and Rational Choice
• Group and Organizational Choice
• Decision Support Systems
• System, Evolutionary, Cognitive Modeling
• Machine Learning, Neural Networks
• Intelligent Planning and Control
• Analysis of Textual and Graphical Information
• Analysis of Signals, Audio and Video Information

Peer Review Process

Peer Review

All papers submitted to the Journal are necessarily peer reviewed, that is carried out in compliance with the principles of publication ethics adopted by the Journal Editorial Council and Editorial Board.

The purpose of the peer review is an expert evaluation of the paper correspondence to the Journal subjects, the scientific level of results, the quality of materials’ presentation and design, the possibility of publication. Peer review assists Authors in improving the manuscript quality. The review serves as the basis for the Journal Editorial Board to decide on the advisability of publishing the paper.

Criteria for paper estimation:

• Correspondence of the paper content to the Journal subjects.
• Novelty and originality of results.
• Significance of contribution to the development of theory and practice.
• Correspondence of the paper title with its content.
• Correspondence between abstract and keywords.
• Presentation of the research current state.
• Logical presentation of materials.
• Clarity of language and style of presentation.
• Design and technical presentation of the text.
• Adequacy and validity of conclusions.
• Sufficiency of the list of cited literature.
• Paper level compared to similar papers published in leading journals.

Gradations of rating scales: low, below middle, middle, above middle, high.

Dates for reviewing the manuscript are determined taking into account the possibility of publishing the paper as soon as possible and, as a rule, should not exceed one month. In some cases, dates are agreed with the Journal Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers involved in reviewing papersare recognized experts in the subject of reviewed materials, have high qualifications and experience, confirmed by scientific publications over the past five years. The reviewer, to whom the Editorial Office sends the manuscript, is recommended by a member of the Editorial Board and is appointed by the Journal Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

The reviewer fills out a standard review formapproved by the Editorial Board and sends it to the Editorial Office. The review includes a multi-criteria expert evaluation of the paper, reasoned judgments about the positive aspects and shortcomings of the work, in a free form comments, recommendations to the Authors, which can help improve the manuscript quality and increase its usefulness. The reviewer expresses his/her opinion on the possibility of accepting the manuscript for publication, the need for its revision and correction of the noted shortcomings, or rejection of the manuscript, indicating a motivated reason for refusal.

The Editorial Office sends a review to the Authors, which contains recommendations for finalizing the manuscript and correcting deficiencies, with a proposal to make changes to the paper, taking into account the Reviewer's comments. To the revised version of manuscript, the Authors must attach a response to the Reviewer's comments in the form of a separate file. The Authors have the right to disagree with the Reviewer's remarks, arguing their point of view, or refuse to publish the paper, informing the Editorial Office about it. If necessary, the revised manuscript is sent for re-reviewing.

A rejected manuscript will not be accepted for re-consideration. The Editorial Office sends a reasoned refusal to the Authors, and the text of a negative review upon a request of the Authors.

The review of the paper is stored in the Editorial Office for 5 years.

Upon a request, the Editorial Office sends a copy of the review to the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published 4 times a year, quarterly: at the end of March, June, September, December.

The print run is 100 copies

The publication of conference materials is carried out by decision of the editorial board of the journal upon receipt of a request from the conference organizers.

Sections

• Knowledge Representation
• Reasoning Logics and Automation
• Computational Intelligence
• AI-enabled Systems
• Intelligent Systems and Robots
• Decision Analysis
• Optimal and Rational Choice
• Group and Organizational Choice
• Decision Support Systems
• System, Evolutionary, Cognitive Modeling
• Machine Learning, Neural Networks
• Intelligent Planning and Control
• Analysis of Textual and Graphical Information
• Analysis of Signals, Audio and Video Information

OECD

01.02.EP COMPUTER SCIENS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

01.01. XY STATISTIC & PROBABILITY

01.02.ET COMPUTER SCIENS, INFORMATION SYSTEMS

01.02.EV COMPUTER SCIENS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIOONS

01.02.EW COMPUTER SCIENS,SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

01.02.EX COMPUTER SCIENS, THEORY & METHODS

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

General Terms

This Regulation has been developed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and also taking into account the experience of Russian and foreign publishers.

The Regulation formalizes the basic principles of good faith and ethical behavior, which should guide the activities of the parties involved in the publication of the scientific research results.

The Journal Editorial Board respects the right of Authors to choose their own style and form of paper presentation, but does not necessarily share the ideas of Authors. The Journal Editorial Board respects the opinions of Reviewers, but does not necessarily share the assessments and conclusions of Reviewers regarding the papers.

Editors

Responsibility. Editors are responsible for everything the Journal publishes. Editors should apply an editorial policy that encourages maximum transparency, completeness and authenticity of publications; provide an effective process for independent reviewing of works received for publication.

Honesty. Editors must make fair and objective decisions on publishing works regardless of the Author identity and commercial considerations; protect the reliability of publishing materials by making corrections and retractions when necessary; fight biased behavior while reviewing and editing papers.

Consideration of claims. ditors, in cooperation with the founder, should take appropriate actions in the event of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. In general, such actions include interaction with the manuscript Authors and argumentation of the corresponding complaint or requirement, as well as possible interactions with relevant institutions and research organizations. Based on the results of consideration, the submitted manuscript can be changed or withdrawn, and the already published paper can be retracted.

Confidentiality. Editors, members of the Editorial Board and Editorial staff must provide the confidentiality of information about manuscripts and inform Reviewers and other persons involved in the Journal publication of the need to maintain such confidentiality. Editors, members of the Editorial Board and Editorial staff should not use unpublished materials in their own research.

Conflict of interest. Editors should make every effort to prevent conflicts of interest of all parties involved in the Journal publication.

Reviewers

Competence. The Reviewer should agree to review only those papers for evaluation of which he has sufficient qualifications and experience, and which he can review on time. The Reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the proposed manuscript or does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the Editor about this with a request to exclude him from reviewing of the manuscript.

Objectivity. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the manuscript. The manuscript origin, nationality, religious affiliation, political and other views of its Authors, or commercial considerations should not affect the review content.

Transparency of reviewing. The reviewer must express his opinion on the work concretely and clearly, citing reasonable conclusions and references and not allowing personal criticism of Authors.

Timeliness. The Reviewer must submit his conclusions to the Editorial Office within the established time limits, as well as evaluate the corrections made to the paper or its new version as soon as possible.

Citation. Reviewers should check the manuscript for plagiarism, excessive citation and self-citation (textual and referential), as well as indicate the most significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the manuscript bibliography. For any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier, the corresponding bibliographic reference should be made in the manuscript.

Identification of violations. The Reviewer should pay attention of the Editor to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the considered manuscript and any other published work that is in the field of his scientific competence. In cases where false statements, errors or signs of results’ falsification, bad faith of Authors are found in the manuscript, the Reviewer must immediately notify the Journal Editor and Editorial Office.

Confidentiality. The Reviewer is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of information about the reviewed manuscripts, not to discuss reviews and unpublished manuscripts with colleagues, not to use unpublished data in his own research or for obtaining personal gain.

Conflict of interest. The Reviewer is obliged to notify the Editor of any conflicts of interest that may affect his work. The Reviewer must refuse to review the submitted manuscript in the presence of competitive, mutual and other interactions and relationships with any of Authors, companies or organizations associated with the manuscript.

Authors

Authorship. Authors (Co-authors) of the paper can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to formation of the work concept, implementation of the study, description and interpretation of the results. Authors should not forget to express gratitude to persons who contributed to the results, but do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Originality of work. Authors must guarantee that the submitted manuscript is original, not published previously, and not submitted for publication elsewhere and in any other language. Submissions should contain verified results of the completed research, an objective discussion of their significance, and a sufficient number of bibliographic references. New results should be described in the context of precedent studies.

Reliability of results. Authors should clearly and precisely describe the course and methods of the study for verification and reproducibility of the results. This applies in particular to the origin of source materials and datasets. False or knowingly erroneous statements, falsification of data, results, illustrations or graphs are unacceptable and perceived as unethical behavior.

Citation. Authors should accurately and fully cite the works they use, both their own and those of other authors. All forms of plagiarism, including incorrect borrowing, are unacceptable and perceived as unethical actions.

Openness. Authors should reveal the sources of funding for the work, possible conflicts of interest. Authors should guarantee that the paper does not contain copyright infringement, closed and secret materials, and does not threaten the safety of society and environment.

Fairness. Authors bear full personal and collective responsibility for a reliability of the presented results and conclusions without concealing possible shortcomings, inconsistencies and inaccuracies, as well as for the fact that the implementation of the published study complies with accepted ethical and legal standards. In cases where errors are found in the work submitted for publication, accepted for publication or already published, Authors must immediately notify the Editor and collaborate with Editorial Office to correct the errors as soon as possible or delete the paper.