Aim and Scope

iPolytech Journal is an official journal of the Irkutsk National Research Technical University, the oldest university in Russia.

The mission of the journal consists in creating an open platform in the field of energy, mechanical engineering and metallurgy in order to exchange scientific information, results of fundamental and applied research and new technologies of Russian and foreign specialists with academic and expert-analytical profiles.

The aim of the journal is to become one of the leading platforms in Siberia and the Far East for discussing and presenting advanced research results and new technologies in energy, metallurgy and mechanical engineering.

Objectives:

• to promote modern practices in the application of mathematical modeling, optimization methods, and artificial intelligence in energy, metallurgy, and mechanical engineering;
• to highlight theoretical, numerical, and experimental results obtained by leading researchers, engineers, and graduate students.
• to ensure a high level of constructive dialogue between the expert community and authors.

Section Policies

POWER ENGINEERING -

• 2.4.2. Electrotechnical equipment and systems (engineering sciences)
• 2.4.3. Electric power industry (engineering sciences)
• 2.4.5. Energy systems and complexes (engineering sciences)

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING -

• 2.5.2. Mechanical engineering (engineering sciences)
• 2.5.5. Technology and equipment of mechanical, physical and technical machining (engineering sciences)
• 2.5.6. Machine building technology (engineering sciences)

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

METALLURGY -

• 2.6.2. Metallurgy of ferrous, non-ferrous and rare metals (engineering sciences)

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

BRIEF COMMUNICATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

Open Access Policy

The journal provides open access to the articles. Any user can read, download, copy, distribute and print the articles' full versions without any financial, legal or technical barriers, in strict compliance with the copyright rules and with a reference to the journal.

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions. When using the materials the link to the organization is required.

Archiving

• Russian State Library

• National Electronic Information Consortium
• VINITI Database RAS

Peer-Review

The Editorial Board of iPolytech Journal adheres to COPE recommendations when working with authors and reviewers, as well as when organizing the entire peer review process.

REVIEW TYPE

All manuscripts, submitted to iPolytech Journal, undergo mandatory double-blind peer review. This means that the identities of authors are reviewers remain confidential and that all correspondence is conducted through the Executive Secretary of iPolytech journal. Each manuscript is forwarded to at least two experts for review.

REVIEW TIMELINE

The peer review process in iPolytech journal lasts on average from three to eight weeks. This period includes the initial review of the manuscript, selection of reviewers, preparing the review, revision of the manuscript by the author and repeated reviewing, involvement of additional experts.

REVIEW PROCESS

The decision on selecting reviewers for iPolytech journal is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts. If differing opinions arise regarding a manuscript, a third expert may be consulted.

The Executive Secretary of iPolytech journal may convey one of the following decisions regarding the manuscript to the author:

Accept for publication. In this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for further processing. The author will be notified of the publication timeline.

Accept for publication after correcting the shortcomings identified by the reviewer. In this case, the author will be asked to make changes to the manuscript as indicated by the reviewer within a week. In case of correction of shortcomings or in case of a justified refusal to make changes, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Accept for publication after correcting the shortcomings identified by the reviewer and repeated reviewing. In this case, the author will be asked to make changes to the manuscript as indicated by the reviewer within two weeks. The manuscript will be sent for repeated reviewing. Within 30 days, the author will receive a final decision regarding the manuscript.

Reject. In this case, the author will be sent a reasonable rejection to publish the manuscript. A rejection does not prohibit authors from submitting manuscripts to iPolytech journal in the future; however, if a rejection is due to gross violations by the authors, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to blacklist the authors. In this case, other articles by these authors will not be considered.

The Editorial Board of iPolytech journal allows for three rounds of review, meaning that after the first decision regarding revisions, the author has two opportunities to make changes based on reviewer recommendations or to provide a justified refusal. If after the third round of review an expert sends additional comments, the Editor-in-Chief will suggest that the author consider submitting to another journal or resubmit the article with revisions in six months.

If the author does not plan to finalize the article, he/she must notify the Editorial Board of the journal about this.  In this case, the article will be discontinued.

If an author has a conflict of interest with an expert who may potentially become a reviewer of the manuscript, they must notify the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The Editorial Board of iPolytech journal will select another reviewer if necessary.

In the process of reviewing the manuscript, a conflict may arise between the author and the reviewer. In this case, the Editor-in-Chief of iPolytech journal has the right to appoint a new reviewer for the manuscript and act as an expert for dispute resolution.

Articles of the editor-in-chief, his/her deputies, the executive secretary and members of the Editorial Board may be published in iPolytech journal, but however, there is to be no abuse of office. Manuscripts of the journal staff are sent for double-blind review only to external experts. Only external experts are involved to resolve contradictions and conflict situations. In case of a conflict regarding the manuscript of the Editor-in-Chief, the final decision on publishing the article is made by the members of the Editorial Board.

When publishing articles by members of the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief, and his/her deputies, information about the authors' affiliation with the journal is indicated in the “Conflict of Interest” section.

iPolytech journal does not exempt any manuscripts from review, regardless of the authors' status. 

The main reasons for rejecting manuscripts include non-compliance with the scientific scope of the journal, a significant share of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, lack of scientific novelty, low scientific quality and/or significance.

Reviews are stored in the editorial office of iPolytech journal for at least five years.

The Editorial Board of the journal sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receiving a proper request.

REVIEW PANEL

Peer review of all incoming manuscripts involves external experts and members of the Editorial Board with experience in the relevant subject area and publications on the subject of peer reviewed manuscript within the period of the last three years.

PRINCIPLES OF PEER REVIEWER SELECTION AND ACTIONS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE JOURNAL TO ENSURE HIGH QUALITY EXPERTISE

The editorial board of the journal iPolytech journal is focused on engaging recognized experts in mechanical engineering, energy and metallurgy, as well as on ensuring timely rotation of reviewers.

Reviewers are invited to work with the journal based on recommendations from the Editor-in-Chief, his/her deputies, and members of the Editorial Board.

The deputy editors regularly monitor publications on the journal's topics in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and RSCI, and invite authors of these publications to collaborate.

The first review by new reviewers is assessed according to the following algorithm:

1. Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the issue raised in the study?
2. Did the reviewer comment on the originality of the manuscript?
3. Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study (study design, data collection and analysis)?
4. Did the reviewer provide useful comments regarding the language and structure of the article, tables, and figures?
5. Were the reviewer's comments constructive?
6. Did the reviewer present arguments using examples from the article to support their comments?
7. Did the reviewer comment on the author's interpretation of the results?
8. Overall quality of the review.

Each item can be rated from 1 to 5 points, where 1 is the minimum score and 5 is the maximum.

If the Editor-in-Chief is not satisfied with the quality of the review, cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.

The Editor-in-Chief of iPolytech journal has the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews from all experts involved in working with the journal according to the presented algorithm.

MECHANISM OF INVOLVING REVIEWERS IN THE WORK ON THE JOURNAL

The editors of iPolytech journal consider peer review to be one of the most important procedures when working with the journal and appreciate the experience and time of experts who are involved in the review.

Reviewers of iPolytech journal receive the right to priority publication, as well as to translate the text of the article accepted for publication into English.

The names of reviewers and their affiliations are published on iPolytech journal website in open access, without indicating which articles they reviewed.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any manuscript is treated by the editorial team of iPolytech journal as a confidential document. The editorial team expects that reviewers will not share or discuss the texts of manuscripts with third parties without the authors' consent.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REVIEWER

By agreeing to review manuscripts for the iPolytech journal, the reviewer accedes to the journal's policies when evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, as well as in terms of reviewer conduct and compliance with ethical guidelines.

The reviewers shall strive to ensure high-quality published materials in iPolytech journal, as does the Editor-in-Chief, and therefore shall only review manuscripts if they have sufficient expertise in the subject area and enough time for a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the article.

The reviewer shall inform the Editor-in-Chief of any conflict of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious). In case of doubts, the situation shall be discussed with the Editor-in-Chief. 

The reviewers shall decline to review if they:

• Are a supervisor or subordinate of the manuscript's author, or a holder of joint grants;
• Do not intend to prepare a review but only wish to familiarize themselves with the article's text;
• Are preparing their own article for publication on a similar topic.

The reviewer shall inform the Editor-in-Chief of their intention to review an article and complete their work within the timeframe specified by the Editor-in-Chief or executive secretary. If reviewing is not possible for various reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the Editor-in-Chief.

The reviewers shall not use their status for personal purposes or impose references to their own works on the authors.

All materials received from the Editor-in-Chief or executive secretary of the journal are strictly confidential. The reviewer shall not transfer materials to third parties or involve other specialists in reviewing the manuscript without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief of iPolytech journal.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVIEWERS

For the convenience of reviewers, the editorial team of iPolytech journal offers a brief review form. It includes questions necessary for the Editor-in-Chief to make a decision about the article.

The editorial team requests that reviewers pay special attention to the “Comments” section to help authors improve their current and future work.

CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW:

The section is based on the  recommendations of NEIKON Service. The Editorial Board of iPolytech journal received permission from NEIKON Service to use these methodological recommendations in the journal's peer review policy.

The manuscript shall be evaluated according to 10 criteria:

•  originality; 
•  logical rigor;
•  statistical rigor; 
•  clarity and conciseness of writing style;
•  theoretical significance; 
•  reliable results; 
•  relevance to contemporary areas of research; 
•  reproducibility of results; 
•  literature coverage; 
•  application of results. 

In addition to the brief review form, the editorial team of iPolytech journal recommends that reviewers adhere to the following review structure:

1. Comments for the Editor-in-Chief

Conflict of interest. This section describes any actual or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors that may lead to biased conclusions. 

Confidential comments. This section is intended for comments that will not be shared with the authors. It includes the reviewer’s final conclusion regarding the manuscript, any doubts related to potential ethical violations, as well as recommendations and accompanying comments (for example, the reviewer may suggest that the Editor-in-Chief request additional information from the author).

Proposed Decision. It generally implies a brief conclusion about the manuscript (accept for publication, accept for publication after minor revisions, accept for publication after major revisions, reject, or reject and suggest the author resubmit the article for consideration). 

2. Comments for authors

Introduction. This section describes the main findings and value of the article for readers.

General Comments. This section discusses relevance to the journal's goals and objectives, the level of reliability, and ethical conduct. 

Special Comments. The reviewer assesses sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or provides comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines. 

Recommendations for the Author. The reviewer offers suggestions to the author for improving the quality of the manuscript and possibly future research. 

Final Comment. A brief description of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.

3. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Relevance to Subject Area

Reviewers shall not waste time reviewing irrelevant manuscripts, regardless of their quality. It is essential first to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the subject area of the scientific journal and interests its audience. 

Validity

Does the work meet all necessary requirements regarding research design, scientific methods, structure and content, as well as depth of analysis? Does it adhere to principles of impartial scientific research? Are the research results reproducible? Is the studied sample appropriately constructed?  Is it analyzed in sufficient detail to generalize the research findings? 

Novelty

Has the research contributed anything new to the relevant subject area? 

Ethics

Does the research meet originality requirements? Is it impartial concerning conflicts of interest?  Regardless of how significant the manuscript's potential importance may be, it cannot be accepted for publication in cases of redundancy, plagiarism, or violations of fundamental ethical principles in scientific research: legality, benefit, and respect for people.

4. Evaluation of Manuscript Elements

The editorial team of iPolytech journal suggests using the following questions to expedite the review process and provide the most comprehensive information about the article to the Editor-in-Chief and the authors.

Title 

Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract the attention of readers? 

Abstract

Is the content of the manuscript properly presented in the abstract (is the abstract structured, with a description of aims, methods, results, and significance)?

Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the sections of the manuscript? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?

Introduction

Is the introduction concise? Is the aim of the study clearly defined and the problem set? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the study based on a literature review?  If so, does this part meet the volume requirements? Does the author provide definitions of terms encountered in the manuscript?

Literature Review

How coherent is the literature review? 

Methods 

Can another researcher reproduce the study results using the proposed methods, or are the methods unclear? 

Do the authors justify their choices when describing research methods (e.g., choice of visualization methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)? 

If the authors propose a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow the hypothesis to be validated? 

How is the study design presented? 

How does data analysis contribute to achieving the stated objective? 

Results.

Are the results clearly explained? Does the order of presenting results match the order in which methods are described? Are the results justified and expected, or uncontemplated? Are there any results that lack corresponding descriptions in the “Methods” section? How accurate is the presentation of results? 

Discussion

Is the discussion concise? If not, how can it be shortened?

If a hypothesis was stated, do the authors report whether it was confirmed or refuted? If the hypothesis was not confirmed, do the authors report whether the question posed in the study was answered? Do the authors' conclusions correspond to the results obtained during the study? If unexpected results are obtained, do the authors analyze them appropriately? What potential contribution does the research make to the field and global science?

Conclusions

Do the authors acknowledge limitations of their study? Are there any additional limitations to note? What is the authors' opinion on these limitations? What is their view on future research directions? 

References

Does the reference list conform to the format of the journal? Are there bibliographic errors in the reference list? Are citations from the reference list in the text of the article correct? Are there important works that are not mentioned but should be noted? Are there more references in the article than necessary? Are the cited references relevant? 

Tables

If there are tables in the article, do they accurately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added to the article? Are the data presented in tables appropriately processed and do they facilitate understanding of information rather than complicating it?

Figures

Are tables and figures an appropriate choice for addressing the stated problem? Can results be illustrated in another way? Do figures and graphs accurately show important results? Is there a need to make changes to figures and graphs for a more precise and clear presentation of results? Do captions for figures and graphs allow understanding of information without referring back to the manuscript itself?

Conflict of Interest

Is information about funding and conflict of interest clearly stated?

5. Final Decision of the Reviewer

The Editorial Board of iPolytech journal suggests using the following rationale for the final decision of the reviewer.

Accept the article for publication

The reviewer understands that the article is ready for publication in its current form. The article is justified, ethical, significant for the scientific community, and complements previously published works. The writing style is clear and concise. 

Accept with minor revisions

There are uncritical comments to be addressed. This may include poor writing style, lack of clarity in presentation, insufficiently developed structure, errors in references, duplication of information in figures and tables, and in the text of the article. After making the changes and re-evaluating, the article may be accepted for publication. 

Accept after substantial revisions and repeated review

The article contains serious shortcomings and errors that affect the reliability of the results obtained: issues with ethics, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or incorrect interpretation, insufficiently complete description of the limitations of the study, contradictory (or self-refuted) conclusions, absence of references to important studies, unclear tables and figures requiring significant improvement. After re-evaluation, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional expertise. Such a decision often requires gathering additional data from the author. 

Reject 

The work does not meet the aims and objectives of the journal, has one or more irremediable deficiencies, or serious ethical issues: consent for publication was not obtained when necessary, research methods are unethical, methodology is discredited or erroneous (for example, a process that seriously affects the results is ignored). In such cases, the author shall not submit a revised document without a specific request. The reviewer shall provide detailed comments justifying their decision, as these may help the author significantly improve the work.

Reject and invite the author to re-submit

The topic or research problem is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods; therefore, the obtained data are also unreliable. This decision is also possible when the article requires numerous changes or when obtaining requested additional information from the author is not possible. The authors are invited to conduct the study considering the recommended changes and submit new results for review.

6. Editing Reviews

The editorial team of iPolytech journal expects reviews to be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. Personal attacks, insults towards the author, and unfounded criticism of any aspect of the study, language, and style of the manuscript, etc., are prohibited.

The editorial team of iPolytech journal strives to convey reviews to authors in their original form; however, in some cases it may be necessary to modify the text of the review without losing its meaning (for example, when combining comments from several experts on one issue or in the case of confidential comments in the section of the review intended for the author).

The Editorial Board of iPolytech journal has the right to send a review back to an expert for revision in case of numerous errors or inappropriate tone in the review.

7. Acknowledgements to Reviewers

The editorial team of [JOURNAL NAME] thanks the experts who participated in evaluating articles in 2024:

The policy is adopted by Editor-in-Chief Denis N. Sidorov.

Publishing Ethics

The section is based on materials from the Elsevier publishing company for scientific and medical literature, as well as materials from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

1. Introduction

1.1. Publication in a peer reviewed journals serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. For all these reasons and more, it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the publishing: Author, Editor, Reviewer, Publisher and the academic community associated with iPolytech Journal

1.2. The publisher facilitates academic communications, invests into in the process, and, moreover, bears the responsibility for adhering to all current guidelines applicable to the published work.

1.3. The Publisher takes their duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record the “minutes of science” and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies, not least in the ethical guidelines adopted here.

2. Duties of Editor-in-Chief

2.1. Publication decision

The Editor-in Chief of iPolytech Journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal will be published, though often working on conjunction with the relevant academic community. Such decisions shall always be justified in terms of a validation of the work and its scientific value. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the iPolytech Journal editorial board and constrained by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers (or official representatives of the academic community) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play

The Editor-in-Chief shall evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content disregarding gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff of iPolytech Journal shall not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the Author, Reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Publisher. 

2.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

2.4.1 Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript shall not be used in an Editor’s own research without the written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review shall be kept confidential and shall not be used for personal gain

2.4.2 Editors shall recuse themselves (i.e. shall ask a co-editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and make decision) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript.

2.5. Vigilance over the published record

The Editor-in-Chief who presented convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published article are erroneous shall coordinate with the Publisher 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

The Editor-in-Chief together with the Publisher shall take reasonably responsive measures when complaints of an ethical nature have been received concerning a submitted manuscript or published article. Such measures generally include contacting the Author of the manuscript or article and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, though they 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-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the Author, may also assist the Author in improving the manuscript. An essential component of formal scholarly communication, the peer review process is an integral part of the scientific method. The 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 reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or realizes that their prompt review will be impossible shall notify the Editor-in-Chief of iPolytech Journal and recuse them from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review shall be treated as confidential documents. They shall not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as expressly authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. 

3.4. Standards and objectivity

Reviews shall be conducted objectively. Any personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. Reviewers shall express their views clearly with supporting arguments.  

3.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers shall identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported shall be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer shall also notify the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge. 

3.6. Disclosure and conflict of interest 

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript shall 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 shall be kept confidential and shall not be used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers shall 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 manuscripts. 

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Requirements for manuscripts

Authors of manuscripts shall present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data shall be represented accurately in the manuscript. A manuscript shall contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical publishing behavior and are considered unacceptable.

4.2. Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review, shall be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and shall 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 shall ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or acknowledged. 

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from claiming someone else's article as own to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of someone else's article (without attribution) or claiming credit for the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is considered unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication 

4.4.1. An Author shall not publish manuscripts describing 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 considered unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an Author shall not submit for consideration a manuscript that has been previously published in another journal.

4.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others shall always be provided. Authors shall cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, including in conversations, correspondences, or discussions with third parties, shall not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or assisting with grant applications, shall not be used without the explicit written permission of the Authors of the relevant work.

4.6. Authorship of published work

4.6.1. Authorship is limited to those who have made a valuable contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported research. All those who have made valuable contributions shall be listed as co-authors. The others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research shall be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The Author shall ensure that all appropriate co-authors are duly acknowledged in the manuscript, those who did not participate in the research are not listed as Co-authors, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript as well as explicitly agreeing 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 shall clearly identify these in the manuscript. 

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the Author shall 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 committees have approved them. Authors shall include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects shall always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

4.8.1. All authors shall disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which to be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest shall be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works

When discovering a fundamental error or inaccuracy in a published work, the Author shall promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief of iPolytech Journal and cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to retract or correct the article. Should the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a fundamental error, the Author shall promptly retract or correct the article.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. The Publisher shall adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of iPolytech Journal in performing their ethical duties under the ethics guidelines.

5.2. The Publisher shall support the Editor-in-Chief of iPolytech Journal in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues as well as facilitate communications with other journals and / or publishers where this is useful to the Editor.

5.3. The Publisher shall develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4 The Publisher shall provide comprehensive legal support (review and counsel) if necessary.

6. Article retraction (withdrawal) procedure in iPolytech Journal

This section has been prepared in accordance with the Rules for Retracting (withdrawing) an article from the publication of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ANRI) and the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the COPE (COPE Retraction Guidelines).

6.1. Grounds for retraction include:

• detection of data falsifications or fabrications (e.g., manipulation of experimental data);
• identification of fundamental errors in the work (e.g., incorrect interpretation of results) that undermine its scientific value;
• substantial improper plagiarism;
• redundant publication;
• disputed authorship (exclusion of an individual who qualifies as an author; inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria);
• concealment of a conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
• republishing the article without the author's consent;
• other violations of the ethical principles of the scientific journal.

6.2. Retraction procedure

6.2.1. A decision for retraction shall be made by the editorial board of the scientific journal upon the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief. A copy of the minutes from the meeting of the editorial board, detailing the reasons for retraction (including references to sources in cases of plagiarism), along with the date of retraction, shall be sent to the Author (or the lead author in the case of co-authorship). Authors may disagree with the position of the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board; however, this does not negate the rights of the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board to conduct the retraction procedure.

6.2.2. A decision for retraction initiated by the editorial board shall take into account the response of the Author, who shall provide justification for their position regarding the retraction of the article. If the Author ignores the editorial board's request, the editorial board reserves the right to seek assistance from the Council on Publication Ethics of ANRI and/or to proceed with the retraction without considering the Author's opinion.

6.2.3. If the Author(s) deem it necessary to withdraw the article, they shall contact the editorial office, providing a reasoned explanation for their decision. Subsequently, the editorial office shall initiate the retraction procedure.

6.2.4. The article and its abstract shall remain on the website of the scientific journal as part of the relevant issue, with a RETRACTED mark along with the date of retraction. This notice shall also be included in the table of contents of the issue.

6.2.5. Information regarding retracted articles shall be submitted to the Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications of ANRI, as well as to scientific information databases (National Electronic Library, Cyberleninka), for inclusion in a unified database of retracted articles. Retractions and corresponding links shall be excluded from the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) and shall not be factored into performance metrics.

Founder

• Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Irkutsk National Research Technical University” 

Author fees

The journal does not have any article submission charges.

The journal does not have any article processing charges.

The journal does not have any article publication charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained through the peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the article.

Plagiarism detection

The Journal uses the plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “iPolytech Journal”, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “iPolytech Journal” we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)